Informational Comparative Science

Informational Comparative Space

Marcus Wilson

© 2004 - 2006 by Marcus Wilson, All Rights Reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording without written permission by the author.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction The Two Dimension of Human Reasoning Description Kinds Space Relations Space Comparative Space Kinds Integration Relations Integration Comparative Integration Kinds Division Relations Division Comparative Division Kinds Awareness Relations Awareness Comparative Awareness Kinds Levels of Composition Relations Levels of Composition Comparative Levels of Composition Kinds Space Nested Patterns Relations Space Nested Patterns Comparative Space Nested Patterns Kinds Transitivity Relations Transitivity Comparative Transitivity Kinds Relationship Measurement 3

6 7 8 9 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 28 30 32 33 33 34 35 38 39

Relations Relationship Measurement Comparative Relationship Measurement Kinds Order Relations Order Comparative Order Kinds Quantity Relations Quantity Comparative Quantity Kinds Density Relations Density Comparative Density Kinds Common Description Relations Common Description Comparative Common Description Kinds Uncommon Description Relations Uncommon Description Comparative Uncommon Description Kinds Main Parts Relations Main Parts Comparative Main Parts The World of Comparative Units Building Comparative Units The Warping of the Dimensions Rotating Comparative Units Comparative Locative Correspondence Deductive Certainty and Uncertainty Explaining Itself 4

39 40 41 43 45 46 47 47 48 49 49 50 60 66 74 75 77 78 80 81 81 108 136 145 148 149 151

The Law of Comparative Wholeness The Absolutes of Comparative Space Glossary List of Principles Appendix

5

152 154 156 159 166

Introduction Beginning in May of 2000 is when I first began my search for comparing knowledge. The principles such as that of the telescope I attempted to expand. So that is when I spent nearly a year attempting to substitute the telescope principle into other mediums of knowledge. However, in order to do so successfully, I knew that not only did the ways of the principle need to be discovered, but the fundamental principle of everything in Universe. Prior to that, I knew that there appeared to be some fundamental concept that everything was analogous to. Therefore, in an explicit attempt to find and discover this, I’ve spent a good bit of almost 4 long years. I knew that I didn’t want to spend 10 to 12 years searching for it, so that is when I began to maximize most of my time and do so in the best way that I understood possible. So now I must say that after the years of observation of all knowledge in the Universe, and of the years of reasoning by day and night, that I have discovered the fundamental analogy of the Universe. Within the contents of this book, I will reveal that fundamental metaphor of everything in our existence. With this fundamental metaphor, just as we can compare the growth concept to all living plants and animals that grow and produce fruit; or just as we can compare the circulation concept to all kinds of systems, such as: the solar system, the galaxies, the stars, and even our bodies (the circulatory system and all the other various systems), so with this fundamental metaphor we are able to compare to all knowledge in the Universe. Within the contents of this book, for easy understanding, I have described the main principles, or knowledge, that I have come to associate with it toward its development. And towards the end of the book, I will describe its ability to explain itself; the negative or reverse aspect of the principles; various future applications; and the final law that I have come to associate with it in its entirety. I fancy you enjoy all that is therein and see the world in a new light and achieve higher levels of understanding by the principles. Marcus Wilson May 2004

6

The Two Dimensions of Human Reasoning There exist two dimensions of human reasoning that work together to create comparative space: Kinds space and Relations space. During the search for the fundamental analogy/metaphor of the Universe, I have come to notice that there are two main dimensions of human reasoning that work together to create Comparative Space . The first dimension is Kinds Space: This is the knowledge of similarities and differences. It is the knowledge variations and constants. It is the knowledge of identical things and non identical things. Kinds Space is more associated with the differences and similarities of things varying in quality and quantity. The second dimension is Relations Space. This is the knowledge of interconnections and separations. It is the knowledge of parts and wholes of systems. It is the knowledge of working together and independents. Relations Space is more associated with the proximities and distances of things varying in space and time. Kinds Space times Relations Space is Equal to Comparative Space In mathematics, the area of shape is defined as the length times the width. In the following example, we can see that the length is the horizontal extension of the figure, and the height is the vertical extension of the figure. When they are multiplied together, the area of the two dimensional figure is created. Comparative Space, as it is ordered in cells, is as the two dimensional figure, or extension, although it can be comprised of more dimensions. Kinds Space is organized vertically while Relations Space organized horizontally (or at least that they are perpendicular to each other). As length times width equals the area of the two dimensional space, so Kinds Space times Relations Space is equal to Comparative Space.

7

The two dimensions are interchangeable. This means that the kinds within Kinds Space are also relations. Likewise, the relations within Relations Space are also kinds. In the proceeding chapters, Kinds Space and Relations Space are going to be described as being separate, even though they are interchangeable and both aspects of each other. More about their interchangeability is described in The Warping of the Dimensions section. Just as the 3 dimensions of space are all interchangeable, being aspects of each other, so the two dimensions of Comparative Space are illusively both aspects of each other.

Description Anything that we can know or understand we can give a corresponding description using symbolic forms. With all the types of books written by mankind, all of them contain description. There are physics books, mathematical books, encyclopedia books, economics books, astronomy books, biology books, psychology books, philosophy books, and so on. All of these contain description. Everything that we can know or understand we can give a corresponding description using symbolic forms. This is how we are able to write and explain what we learn of the world. Without description, we would not be able to relate to others, or teach them what we've come to know and understand. By giving things names, it allows our minds to grab certain objects, concepts, and ideas in a corresponding manner. Here are some examples of objects, concepts, or ideas we call by name (and as we can see, it can be ANYTHING that we know or understand):

8

A book is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name 'book' as a corresponding description in symbolic form. A planet is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name 'planet' as a corresponding description in symbolic form. An equation is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name 'equation' as a corresponding description in symbolic form. Gravity is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name 'gravity' as a corresponding description in symbolic form. Love is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name 'love' as a corresponding description in symbolic form. A dream is something that we can know or understand. We give it the name 'dream' as a corresponding description in symbolic form.

Kinds Space Everything is different. One of the most fundamental and well-known principles in the Universe is that everything is different. The Universe is composed of a various array of things varying in size, shape, complexity, color, texture, pattern…with no two things being exactly alike. A human being based on finite perception may consider that two things in this physical universe are exactly like but by looking closely, even on smaller and smaller scales, he will find that no two things contain the exact identity. In the early 1900’s a scientist by the name of Wilson A. Bentley did experiments with snowflakes collecting the patterns of the various forms produced year after year. Of the collective accumulation of his discoveries, he came to notice that no two snowflakes are alike. He realized that there is some degree of difference between all of them making them to not be identical in any way or form. There are some snowflakes that are very similar to others, but if you look very carefully, they will come out to be completely different. Only by observing carefully, or by having a means of a microscope, or other amplifying methods, can one truly see the difference of all unique things. By this observation (as we will see in the later chapters of this book) we can notice that there exists a principle in the Universe. Not only are all snowflakes unique, but all things are unique: each moment, in certain conditions, at certain times; and in certain places snowflakes form. Each time they are produced, not one snowflake turns out to be exactly alike. This is an example of the uniqueness principle. Now when we look at our earth, we can clearly see the various arrays of animals; the varying array of environments; the varying array of mountains. The 9

uniqueness principle states that animals, environments; and mountains are of no difference than snowflakes. Each time new plants are formed under certain conditions and at certain times, they are shaped with their own individuality or uniqueness. There are trees that look very similar to each other, but if we were to look very carefully, there would be some degree of difference. There are plants and flowers that look almost identical to each other, but there are no two that are exactly identical. There are mountains throughout our Universe that may look or appear to be alike, but the evolution of different places in space and time of each thing assures them to have at least some slight bit of difference. With the entire humans population both present, past, and future it is widely known that no two fingerprints are exactly alike. Everyone has his or her own fingerprint. Just as with snowflakes, there are some very similar, so also there are people who have very similar fingerprints but no two are of exact identity. Even the genetic code of each human is slightly different, but no two of equal identity. In the case of twins, it may appear that they may have the same genetic code, but by observing it down to the structure we will notice that there is some slight but of difference. Not only does everyone have their own finger print, but everyone has their own hand; everyone has their own brain; their own consciousness; their own heart; their own arms; their own personality; their own body, and so on. When things are in difference places and at different times, it is only obvious that they are under different circumstances, and thus they must come out to be different according to their place in space and time. No two snowflakes are alike, no to fingerprints are alike; no two persons are alike; no two things in our Universe are exactly alike. With this principle we can come to understand the uniqueness and differences in our every day life. Everything is similar. As previously explained, there is the principle that everything is different. However, not only is everything different, but everything is also similar. Things in this Universe are not 100% different that they don't have at least some degree of similarity. Even though the Universe is composed of a various array of things varying in size, shape, complexity, color, texture, pattern…with no two things being exactly alike, all those varying array of things are similar to each other in some way or form. A human being based on finite perception may consider that two things have no similarities but by looking closely, he will find that no two things are so different that they don't have some degree of similarity.

10

Now when we look at our earth, we can clearly see the various arrays of animals; the varying array of environments; the varying array of mountains. The universal similarity principle states that animals, environments; and mountains all have some degree of similarity. Each time new plants are formed under certain similar conditions and at certain times, they are also shaped with similarities. Gravity and water appear to be very different from each other, but if we were to look closely, there would be some degree of similarity. The nervous system and circulatory system may appear to be very different from each other, but if we were to look closely, there would be some degree of similarity. A thought and a nail may appear to be very different from each other, but if we were to look closely, there would be some degree of similarity. The mind and the universe may appear to be very different from each other, but if we were to look closely, there would be some degree of similarity. Just as nothing is exactly identical that it doesn't have some degree of difference, so two things are so different that they don't have some degree of similarity. There are mountains throughout our Universe that may look or appear to be different, but the evolution of similar places in space and time of each thing assures them to have at least some slight bit of similarity. When things are in similar places and at similar times, it is only obvious that they are under similar circumstances, and thus they must come out to be similar according to their place in space and time. No two snowflakes are alike, but so also every snowflake is similar. No to fingerprints are alike; but so also every fingerprint is similar. No two persons are alike; but so also every person is similar. With this principle we can come to understand the commonalities and similarities of things in our every day life.

11

Relations Space Everything is divided. Another one of the fundamental principles is that the Universe is extension. It extends in space. It extends in time. The Universe extends in various other forms of extension. What two things do we know of that share the exact same place in space and/or time? Our bodies are composed of countless molecules all being divided by space: Our heads are at different locations than our arms. Our legs are at different locations than our lungs. Our eyes are at different locations than our ears. Each cell on our bodies are location at different locations in the body. Our bodies are also composed of countless molecules all being divided by time: Ten years ago, you had different cells in your body than they were today. The cells in your future will be different than the ones you have in your present. Each time each molecules in your body moves to a new location, the way it was in its previous location is no different in its present. Your body is different than it was 5 minutes ago; 5 years ago; and different from when you were born. Not only is our bodies divided in space and time, but also the universe and all within it: Our galaxy, the Milkyway, is composed of many star systems. However, each of those systems has their own place within the galaxy. No two of the star systems are at the same place and time at any given time. There is space in between every star system. And even with all the stars systems in the Universe, we know they may contain planets. However, each of those planets within each of the star systems is divided by portions of space. And each within each of the planets it is composed of parts, which are each, divided little portions of space. And it goes down on smaller and smaller scales.

12

With the extension of time, we can observe an object moving through our field of vision. But of that complete event, it is composed of even smaller events divided in time, and even more events divided in time. Even the thoughts we produce are divided by space and time. No two thoughts have the exact same place in space–time; the earth is rotating and revolving each minute, as well as the entire solar system it is in, the galaxy, the constellation, and all of the cosmos. As we can see, just as everything is different, so also everything is divided. No two things are in the exact same place at the exact same time. By this principle we can come to know and understand the unique locations of things in our every day life. Everything is connected. Even we've noticed that everything is divided, so also everything is related. Everything is interdependent and connected. We know that the Universe is extension. It extends in space. It extends in time. But things are not so divided 100% that they don't have some degree of interconnection. What two things do we know of that are so distant and space-time that they do not affect each other? Our bodies are composed of countless molecules all being divided by space, but yet all connected as well: Our heads are at different locations than our arms; however, they are all connected to the body. Our legs are at different locations than our lungs; however, they are all connected to the body. Our eyes are at different locations than our ears; however, they are all connected to the body. Each cell in our bodies is at different locations; however, they are all connected within the body. Our bodies are also composed of countless molecules all being divided by time, but yet all are connected as well: Ten years ago, you had different cells in your body than they were today; however, they are all related to each other, as they affect each other throughout time. The cells in your future will be different than the ones you have in your present; however, they will still affect each other even though they are divided by time.

13

Each time each of the molecules in your body moves to a new location, the way it was in its previous location is no different in its present; however, they still affect each other, even though they are divided by time. Your body is different than it was 5 minutes ago; 5 years ago; and different from when you were born, however, at each of those times, it was important for them to affect each of those times. Not only does our body contain things that are divided, but yet connected in space and time, but also the Universe and all within it is connected and related: Our galaxy, the Milkyway, is composed of many star systems. Even thou each of those systems are divided within the galaxy, no two of the star systems are so divided that they don't have some degree of connection. There is space in between every galaxy, yet there is interconnectivity between every galaxy. There is space in between every star system, yet there is interconnectivity between every star system. There is space in between every planet, yet there is interconnectivity between every planet. There is space in between every molecule, yet there is interconnectivity between every molecule. Even though the thoughts we produce are divided by space and time, no two thoughts are so divided that they don't have so degree of influence or connectivity. As we can see, just as everything is divided, with no two things being in the exact same place in space-time; so also everything is connected, with no two things being so divided that they don't have some degree of relatedness.

Comparative Space Everything being unique and alike, divided and related creates Comparative Space. The Universe contains the differences and similarities of qualities and quantities, and it contains the divisions and relations of space and time. Of these two observations, we can see how both of them together create the combination

14

of things being different and similar and divided and related. This is Comparative Space. It is when things are different and similar and divided and connected. A group of many kinds of fish may all be different and similar to each other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and related. The difference and similarities is vertical and their dividedness and relatedness is horizontal. A group of many universes may all be different and similar to each other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and related. The difference and similarities is vertical and their dividedness and relatedness is horizontal. A group of many kinds of people may all be different and similar to each other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and related. The difference and similarities are perpendicular to their dividedness and relatedness. A group of many kinds of houses may all be different and similar to each other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and related. The difference and similarities is one way; their dividedness and relatedness is the opposite way. A group of many planets may all be different and similar to each other, but also each of their parts that they are composed of is divided and related. The difference and similarities are perpendicular to their dividedness and relatedness. Comparative Space is a combination of Kinds Space and Relations Space. We know that everything is unique and similar. We know that everything is divided and related. Therefore, everything is uniquely and similarly divided and connected or divided and connectively unique and similar – a combination of the two.

Kinds Integration Our mind has the ability to group together things that are unique as if they were alike. Kinds Integration is the ability to group things that are different in this Universe as if they were alike. As previously iterated, the universe is differentiated in qualities and quantities. However, even though all things are distinct, our mind is able to group together things as if they were not distinct: but as if they were alike.

15

There are many kinds of people on this earth; however, no two people are of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those people we deem most alike in relation to all the others. There are many kinds of cars; however, no two cars are of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those cars we deem most alike in relations to all the others. There are many kinds of inventions; however, no two inventions are of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those inventions we deem most alike in relations to all the others. There are many kinds of galaxies; however, no two galaxies are of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those galaxies we deem most alike in relations to all the others. There are many kinds of colors; however, no two colors are of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those colors we deem most alike in relations to all the others. There are many kinds of brains; however, no two brains are of exact identity. Nonetheless, we are able to group together those brains we deem most alike in relations to all the others. Kinds Integration is the ability to group together things that are unique as if they are alike, or more similar in relation to all other things that are more different.

Relations Integration Our mind has the ability to group together things that are divided as if they were related. Relations Integration is the ability to group things that are divided in this Universe as if they were connected. As previously iterated, the universe is divided in space and time. However, even though all things are divided, our mind is able to group together things as if they were not divided: but as if they were related. There are many biological cells on earth; however, no two biological cells are in the exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group together by Relations Integration those biological cells we deem closest together in space-time in relation to all the others. A specific plant, fish, bird, or human would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all the divided biological cells on earth. 16

There are many water molecules on earth; however, no two molecules are in the exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group together by Relations Integration those molecules we deem closest together in space-time in relation to all the others. A specific ocean, sea, river, or lake would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all the divided water molecules on earth. There are many thoughts on earth; however, no two thoughts are in the exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group together by Relations Integration those thoughts we deem closest together in spacetime in relation to all the others. A specific book, speech, painting, or dream would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all the divided thoughts on earth. There are many events in the universe; however, no two events are in the exact same space-time. Nonetheless, we are able to group together by Relations Integration those events we deem closest together in spacetime in relation to all the others. A specific holiday, movie, time frame, or song would all be examples of specific Relations Integrations of all the divided events in space-time. Relations Integration is the ability to group together things that are divided as if they are connected, or closer together in space-time in relation to all other things that are more divided.

Comparative Integration Our mind has the ability to group together things that are distinct and divided into comparatives. Comparative Integration is the ability of our minds to group together things that are distinct and divided into comparatives. As previously iterated, The Universe contains the differences of qualities and quantities, and it contains the divisions of space and time. Comparative Integration is a combination of Kinds Integration and Relations Integration. Examples would be: There are many different kinds of houses. Each of those houses is different in quality and quantity, and each of those houses is divided in space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those houses by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations Integration and therefore group their similarities and parts with Comparative Integration. There are many different kinds of mountains. Each of those mountains is different in quality and quantity, and each of those mountains is divided in 17

space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those mountains by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations Integration and therefore group their similarities and parts with Comparative Integration. There are many different kinds of computers. Each of those computers is different in quality and quantity, and each of those computers is divided in space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those computers by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations Integration and therefore group their similarities and parts with Comparative Integration. There are many different kinds of stories. Each of those stories is different in quality and quantity, and each of those stories is divided in space and time. Our mind has the ability to group together those stories by Kinds Integration and each of their parts by Relations Integration and therefore group their similarities and parts with Comparative Integration. Comparative Integration is the ability of our mind to group together things that are different and divided as if they are alike and related, or closer together in quality-quantity and space-time in relation to all other things that are more different and divided.

Kinds Division Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that are alike as if they were distinct. Kinds Division is the ability to divide things that are more alike in this Universe as if they were divided. As previously iterated, we are able to group together things as if they are alike. However, our mind is also able to divide apart things that are very similar as if they are not very similar at all. There are various colors of red. Although two colors may appear to be identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between them and notice their differences. There are various types of lions. Although two lions may appear to be identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between them and notice their differences. There are various types of voices. Although two voices may appear to be identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between them and notice their differences. There are various types of ants. Although two ants may appear to be identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between 18

them and notice their differences. There are various types of experiences. Although two experiences may appear to be identical, by observing them carefully, we are able distinguish between them and notice their differences. Kinds Division is the ability of our minds to divide apart things that are alike as if they were different.

Relations Division Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be connected as if they were divided. Relations Division is the ability to divide things that are related in this Universe as if they were separate. As previously iterated, the Universe is connected and close within space and time. However, even though all things close in space and time, our mind is able to divide apart things as if they were not connected or related. There are many biological cells in our body; however, no two biological cells are so close that we can't notice that they are divided by space and time. We are able to separate those biological cells we deem very close by Relations Division. There are many water molecules in a body of water; however, no two water molecules are so close that we can't notice that they are divided by space and time. We are able to separate those water molecules we deem very close by Relations Division. There are many thoughts in our mind; however, no two thoughts are so close that we can't notice that they are divided by space and time. We are able to separate those thoughts we deem very close by Relations Division. There are many events in our lives; however, no two events are so close that we can't notice that they are divided by space and time. We are able to separate those thoughts we deem very close by Relations Division. Relations Division is the ability to divide apart things that are more connected as if they are divided.

19

Comparative Division Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be alike and connected as if they were distinct and divided. Comparative Division is the ability of our minds to divide apart things that are alike and connected. As previously explained, The Universe contains the similarities of qualities and quantities, and it contains the proximities of space and time. Comparative Division is a combination of Kinds Division and Relations Division. Examples would be: All houses have similarity. Each of the parts of those houses is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those houses by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division. All mountains have similarity. Each of the parts of those mountains is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those mountains by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division. All computers have similarity. Each of the parts of those computers is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those computers by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division. The various types of stories have similarity. Each of the parts of those stories is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those stories by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division. The various types of brains have similarity. Each of the parts of those brains is connected. Our mind has the ability to divide apart those brains by Kinds Division and each of their parts by Relations Division and therefore divide their similarities and connections by Comparative Division. Comparative Division is the ability of our mind to divide apart things that are alike and connected as if they are different and divided.

20

Kinds Space and Awareness At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Kinds Space. Kinds Space extends indefinitely. Based on our everyday experience, we can come to notice that our perception of the Universe is finite. Additionally, our Kinds Awareness of any given spectrum is finite as well. When we attempt to observe into space, there’s a limit to how far our eyes can see, and there's a limit to how small our eyes can see. When we attempt to lift objects, there's a limit to how much weight we can light, and there's a limit to how small of objects we can grab. When we attempt to hear specific sounds, there's a limit to how low of a pitch we can hear, and there's a limit to how high of a pitch we can hear. When we attempt to solve large calculations, there’s a limit to how fast we can calculate, and there's a limit to how slow we can calculate. The human body is finite, thus, all its functions reach finite levels. Kinds Integration and Division is no different. Our mind may be able to group together many things that are different as if they were alike, but there is always more things on larger portions of the spectrum. Our mind may be able to divide apart many things that alike into differences, but there are always more things that can be found to have some slight bit of difference. In both of these areas it extends to infinity; our finite mind can only perceive a finite portion of them. Scientists have come to notice more than 100 kinds of chemical elements in the Universe; however, the principle states that there are more elements with varying properties that we are not aware of. For example, air is mostly in gas state form and gold in solid state form. Although we classify those two things alike with Kinds Integration, their properties are different with Kinds Division. Gases are easily moved throughout space and are less dense; however, gold is heavy and denser. According to the principle, it states that there are even states of matter that we are not aware of that are more dense and heavier than gold. And it states that there are states of matter that we are not aware of that are less dense and heavier than air. And in both of these aspects, if the denser and lighter materials are discovered, then there will be even more materials to be discovered. The electromagnetic spectrum organized by physics is one of the easiest ways we can see the principle of finite perception of Kinds Space. For example, the electromagnetic spectrum is divided into main kinds of light corresponding to their wavelengths and frequencies. These are: Radio Waves, which have the 21

lowest frequency but the longest wavelengths, Infrared Rays, Visible Light, Ultraviolet, X – rays and Gamma rays, which have the highest frequency but shortest wavelengths. However, of all those different kinds of frequencies of light, our minds by Kinds Integration can only perceive a finite portion, which we call 'Visible Light'. We cannot see radio waves, infrared rays, ultraviolet rays, or gamma rays. We must use other means of detection to understand them or realize that they exist. Even comparing the electromagnetic spectrum to the biological life spectrum, we can notice that they are really of no difference. We are aware of fish, plants, insects, land animals, birds, humans, ground animals, and trees. However, as with the electromagnetic spectrum and matter spectrum, the living species spectrum is also similar. We can only perceive a finite portion all possible kinds of biological life process. The principle states that there is an infinite spectrum to perceive and that we must use other means to detect them outside of our normal state of awareness. Kinds Space extends in higher and lower levels, however, at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion of it. The Kinds Awareness of any given spectrum of kinds can be increased to larger portions of the spectrum. Even though at any given time we can perceive only finite portions of Kinds Space, however, do to instruments and exploration our Kinds Awareness can be increase to larger portions of the spectrum on the higher and lower levels. Our field of view on the kinds of inventions that exist today is currently limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of the many possible inventions to larger portions of the spectrum. Our field of view on the kinds of discoveries that exist today is currently limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of the many possible discoveries to larger portions of the spectrum. Our field of view on the kinds of religions that exist today is currently limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of the many possible religions to larger portions of the spectrum. Our field of view on the kinds of paranormal mysteries that exist today is currently limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of the many possible paranormal mysteries to larger portions of the spectrum.

22

Even thou any given spectrum of kinds will be finite; we can always increase our awareness to larger portions of the spectrum by attempting to do so.

Relations Space and Awareness At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Relations Space. Relations space extends indefinitely. The space and time of the Universe appears to be infinite. However, our perceptions are finite. Thus, we can only perceive, at any given time, a finite portion of the Relations Space with our Relations Awareness. Our sense of sight is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available to see. There are an infinite of number of things we haven't yet seen. Our sense of smell is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available to smell. There are an infinite number of things we haven't yet smelt. Our sense of sound is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available to hear. There are an infinite number of things we haven't yet heard. Our sense of taste is only aware of a finite amount of all that is available to taste. There are an infinite number of things we haven't yet tasted. Our knowledge of the Universe is of only a finite amount of all that is available. There are an infinite number of things we do not know. This principle applies to any form of Relations Space. For each Relations Integration, it is only a finite portion of all the relations that are available of perceiving, even on the higher and lower levels. Considering the Relations Integration of a plant, we know that the plant has roots, stems, leaves, and fruit. However, it also has relations in the past and relations in the future. And if we continue to go down the line in both directions, we’ll go back to the beginning and end of time. Nonetheless, we can perceive or remember only but so much of time at any given time. Considering the Relations Divisions of a house, we know that the house has parts. However, its parts are also composed of parts, and those parts are composed of parts. And if we continue to go down farther into the parts, we will notice that at any given time we can perceive only a finite portion of all the relations that are available. However, not only do these things apply to the Relations Integration of a plant, or the Relations Division of a house, but to all Relations Integrations and 23

Divisions we experience. At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Relations Space. Relations space extends indefinitely. The Relations Awareness of any given form of relations can be increased to larger portions of the Relations Space. Even though at any given time we can perceive only finite portions of Relations Space, however, do to instruments and exploration our Relations Awareness can be increased to larger portions of the spectrum on the higher and lower levels. Our field of view on the relations of a particular tree may be limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of other possible relations of the tree to larger portions of the Relations Space. Our field of view on the relations of a particular event may be limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of the many possible relations of the event to larger portions of the Relations Space. Our field of view on the relations of the formation of our galaxy may be limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of other possible relations of the formation of the galaxy to larger portions of the Relations Space. Our field of view on the relations of the formation of life on earth may be limited and finite. However, by just attempting to do so we can increase our awareness of other possible relations of the formation of life on earth to larger portions of the Relations Space. Even thou any given form of relations will be finite; we can always increase our awareness to larger portions of the relations integration by attempting to do so.

Comparative Space and Awareness At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of comparative space. Comparative space extends indefinitely. The logic associated with the finite awareness of the infinite extension of Kinds and Relations Space determines the finite Comparative Awareness of the infinite extension of Comparative Space. Comparative Space is the combination of Kinds and Relations Space; therefore, what applies to them coherently applies to Comparative Space.

24

There are infinite kinds of numbers, and there are infinite relations of numbers. Each of those numbers belongs to kinds and relations space, and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any given time, we can only perceive a finite portion of the Comparative Space of the numbers, which extends indefinitely. There are infinite kinds of energy, and there are infinite relations of energy. Each of those energies belongs to kinds and relations space, and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any given time, we can only perceive a finite portion of the Comparative Space of the energies. The comparative space of energy extends indefinitely. There are infinite kinds of movies, and there are infinite relations of movies. Each of those movies belongs to kinds and relations space, and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any given time, we can only perceive a finite portion of the comparative space of the movies. The comparative space of the movies extends indefinitely. There are infinite kinds of minds, and there are infinite relations of minds. Each of those minds belongs to kinds and relations space, and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion of the comparative space of the minds. The comparative space of the consciousness extends indefinitely. There are infinite kinds of consciousness, and there are infinite relations of consciousness. Each of those minds belongs to kinds and relations space, and at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion. Therefore, at any given time we can only perceive a finite portion of the comparative space of the consciousness. The comparative space of the consciousness extends indefinitely. Comparative Space itself is a structure that can only be perceive by finite means; just like our finite awareness of space itself. This Comparative Space extends indefinitely and at any given time we can perceive only a finite portion of it. The comparative awareness of any given unit of comparatives can be increased to larger portions of the comparative unit. Even though we can only perceive finite portions of comparative space, we can always increase our Comparative Awareness of it by attempting to do so. As our human race explores and continuously tries to gain and find new knowledge of things that are unknown, so we can explore the infinite expansion of comparative space and discover new aspects of its structure. The Comparative Space of all life on earth may appear to be finite, but by exploring to find more kinds and relations of all life on earth, we can

25

coherently discover and find new comparatives. Likewise, with even those new comparatives of life on earth, we can find and discover even more. The Comparative Space of all stars in the Universe may appear to be finite, but by exploring to find more kinds and relations of all stars in the Universe, we can coherently discover and find new comparatives. Likewise, with even those new comparatives of all stars in the Universe, we can find and discover even more. The Comparative Space of all theories in the Universe may appear to be finite, but by exploring to find more kinds and relations of the theories, we can coherently discover and find the new comparatives. Likewise, with even those new comparatives of theories, we can find and discover even more. Continuously going on with all things known, even thou we may have integrated them within a portion of comparative space, the principle states that by just attempting to do so, we can discover even more, which will allow us to increase our awareness of any given unit of the comparative unit.

Kinds Levels of Composition Everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Kinds Levels of Composition reveals that everything we know or understand belongs to Kinds Space. A spoon, for example, belongs to the Kinds Space of many kinds of spoons. When we expand our awareness of that particular spectrum, we will find that it also belongs to a spectrum called ‘silver ware’. Furthermore, we can expand our awareness of that spectrum and include much higher levels of Kinds Space. This form of expansion is infinite. Everything, the spoon and its kinds; the silverware and its kinds, has its place within the infinite space of kinds. Other examples include: Water belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Water belongs to the mater spectrum. However, even the mater spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Water is also a part of the space of kinds that the mater spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. Love belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Love belongs to the emotional spectrum. However, even the emotional spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Love is also a part of the space of kinds that the emotional spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. Brain belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Brain belongs to a biological spectrum. However, even the biological spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Brain is also a part of the space of kinds that the 26

biological spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. Television show belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Television show belongs to a television show spectrum. However, even the television show spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Television show is also a part of the space of kinds that the television show spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. Concept belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Concept belongs to a concept spectrum. However, even the concept spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Concept is also a part of the space of kinds that the concept spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. In all the previous understanding expansions, the Kinds Space of each of the ideas extends out to infinity, even looping unto their self, with each thought or idea belonging to an infinite space of kinds. Everything is composed of kinds. All things that we can know or understand are composed of kinds. A color, for example, belongs to the Kinds Space of the many kinds of that particular color. However, each of those colors is composed of many other distinguishable colors. Furthermore, each of those particular colors, are composed of even more distinguishable colors. Although, this is pretty much an equivalent explanatory of the infinite space of kinds, however, when we refer to space, normally we refer to the higher level expansion of it. However, in this section we will see that everything is also composed of kinds; even those kinds they are composed of: Animals are composed of kinds. Various types of animals include: alligators, snakes, elephants, and other kinds of animals. However, even an alligator is composed of many kinds of alligators. A snake is composed of many kinds of snakes. An elephant is composed of many kinds of elephants. Spirits are composed of kinds. Various types of spirits include: ghosts, fairies, angels, and other kinds of spirits. However, even a ghost is composed of many kinds of ghosts. A fairy is composed of many kinds of fairies. An angel is composed of many kinds of angels. Particles are composed of kinds. Various types of particles include: protons, neutrons, gluons, and other kinds of particles. However, even a proton is composed of many kinds of protons. A neutron is composed of many kinds of neutrons. A gluon is composed of many kinds of gluons. Sports are composed of kinds. Various types of sports include:

27

basketball, soccer, golf and other kinds of sports. However, even basketball is composed of many kinds of basketball. Soccer is composed of many kinds of soccer. Golf is composed of many kinds of golf. In all the previous similarities, the inner expansion of the Kinds Space extends out to infinity and looping unto their self with each thought or idea being composed of an infinite space of kinds

Relations Levels of Composition Everything belongs to an infinite space of relations. Relations Levels of Composition reveals that everything we know or understand belongs to Relations Space. A goat, for example, belongs to the Relations Space of its parents and the environment it is born in. When we expand our awareness of those particular relations, we will find that it also belongs to Relations Space. Furthermore, we can expand our awareness of that particular group and include even much higher levels of Rinds Space. This form of expansion is infinite. Everything, the goat and its relations and the relations of the goat's relations has its place within the infinite space of relations. Other examples include: Grand Canyon belongs to an infinite space of relations. Grand Canyon belongs to earth. However, even the Earth belongs to its own space of relations. The Grand Canyon is also a part of the space of relations that the Earth is a part, and from there it goes on to infinity. Tree belongs to an infinite space of relations. Tree belongs to a forest. However, even the forest belongs to its own space of relations. The tree is also a part of the space of relations that the forest is a part, and from there it goes on to infinity. A story belongs to an infinite space of relations. The story is related to the people that will read it and the person that wrote it. However, even those people belong to their own space of relations. The story is also a part of the space of relations that the people are a part and it goes on to infinity. Shoe belongs to an infinite space of relations. The shoe is related to the people that will wear it and the person that created it. However, even those people belong to their own space of relations. The cup is also a part of the space of relations that the people are a part and it goes on to infinity. Spinal chord belongs to an infinite space of relations. Spinal chord belongs to the nervous system. However, even the nervous system 28

belongs to its own space of relations. The spinal chord is also a part of the space of kinds that the nervous system is a part, and it goes on to infinity. Television show belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Television show belongs to a television show spectrum. However, even the television show spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Television show is also a part of the space of kinds that the television show spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. Concept belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Concept belongs to a concept spectrum. However, even the concept spectrum belongs to its own space of kinds. Concept is also a part of the space of kinds that the concept spectrum is a part, and it goes on to infinity. In all the previous understanding expansions, the Relations Space of each of the ideas extends out to infinity, even looping unto their self, with each thought or idea belonging to an infinite space of relations Everything is composed of relations. All things that we can know or understand are composed of relations. A pencil, for example, belongs to the Relations Space of the materials that comprise it. However, each of those materials is composed of many other materials. Furthermore, each of those is composed of even more materials. Although, this is pretty much an equivalent explanatory of the infinite space of relations, however, when we refer to space, normally we refer to the higher level expansion of it. However, in this section we will see that everything is also composed of relations; even those relations they are composed of: A human is composed of relations. Relations of a human include: heart, lungs, brain, and other relations of a human. However, even the heart is composed of relations of the heart. The lung is composed of relations of the lung. The brain is composed of relations of the brain. A theory is composed of relations. Relations of a theory include: evidence, postulates, experiments, and other relations of the theory. However, even the evidence is composed of relations of the evidence. The postulates are composed of relations of the postulates. The experiments are composed of relations of the experiments. A dream is composed of relations. Relations of a dream include: how, what, why, and other relations of the dream. However, even the 'how' of the dream is composed of relations of the how. The 'what' of the dream is composed of relations of the what. The why of the dream is composed of relations of the why.

29

The Universe is composed of relations. Relations of the Universe include: constellations, galaxies, planetary systems, and other relations of the Universe. However, even the constellations are composed of relations. The galaxies are composed of relations. The planetary systems are composed of relations. In all the previous ideas, the inner expansion of the Relations Space extends out to infinity and looping unto their self with each thought or idea being composed of an infinite space of relations.

Comparative Levels of Composition Everything has its place within comparative space. This is the fundamental analogy of the Universe. Everything has its place within Comparative Space. All things belong to Kinds Space. All things belong to Relations Space. Therefore, all things belong to Comparative Space, which contains Comparative Levels of Composition. As with the relations and kinds, comparative space extends indefinitely; everything belongs to an infinite space of comparatives. If we create a Comparative Unit, anything can be placed within it. Eye

We know that there are things that are kind to Eye: Ear Eye Nose Skin We know there are things related to the Ear, Eye, Nose, and Skin Nerves for Sensing Sound Nerves for Sensing Light Nerves for Sensing Smell Nerves for Sensing Pressure

Ear Eye Nose Skin

Sound Light Smell Pressure

30

Medium of Sound Medium of Light Medium of Smell Medium of Pressure

Thus in the previous examples, we’ve started with something known that we call by the name ‘eye’. Since everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds, we were able to compute some of them vertically, and since everything belongs to an infinite space of relations, we were able to compute some of them horizontally. So now since each of the added kinds and relations each belong to an infinite space of kinds and relations, and then as we can see, all parts of the comparative unit are comparatives, and everything has its place within comparative space. Everything is composed of comparatives. Just as everything is composed of kinds and relations, so everything is composed of comparatives. Comparative Space is a combination of Kinds Space and Relations Space, thus we can only conclude that the principles of kinds and relations create the principles of Comparative Space. Thus, as with the previous example, concerning the eye, we can divide things into kinds and relations rather than group them. In doing so, we can still create comparatives within comparative space: Now the principle states that everything is composed of comparatives. Therefore, that should imply that the description, ‘Systems of the Human Body’, must be composed of comparatives. We are aware that it is composed of kinds and relations; therefore, comparatives as well: Systems of the Human Body It can be divided into composed kinds: Circulatory System Respiratory System Digestive System Nervous System Each of the kinds can be divided into composed relations: Blood Air Food Electrons

Vessels Wind Pipes Esophagus Nerves

Heart Lungs Intestines Brain

Thus, in that example, the unit of knowledge described as 'Systems of the Human Body' is composed of comparatives. Conversely, even descriptions such

31

as the 'eye' are composed of comparatives; however, some things are so alike that we limit our distinguishing ability and therefore the descriptions as well.

Kinds Space – Nested Patterns The kinds within the infinite expansion of Kinds Space form nested patterns. Another property of Kinds Space is that the kinds within the infinite expansion form nested patterns. Kinds are composed of kinds and are a part of kinds, thus, the elements within the infinite expansion of Kinds Space form nested patterns. An interesting way to recognize this distinct property is concerning the every day life of biological species. Certain animals can only mate with certain animals. There is a specific form of division where the line is crossed on various parts of the spectrum. Monkeys, for example, can only mate with monkeys. Fish can only mate with fish: birds with birds; humans with humans; and so forth. However, each species belongs to the same biological spectrum, yet, there are specific divisions where the line is crossed. Like the roots of a tree, each of them are divided forming nested patterns. Other examples include: There are many kinds of elements. Each of those elements undergoes a 'skip'. They are explained on higher levels of the spectrum: solids, liquids, gases, and plasma. Furthermore, they too undergo a skip of that higher level of difference. There are many kinds of clothing. Each of those clothing undergoes a 'skip'. They are explained on higher levels of the spectrum: shoes, jeans, shirt, hat... Furthermore, they too undergo a skip of that higher level of difference. There are many kinds of light. Each of those light undergoes a 'skip'. They are explained on higher levels of the spectrum: x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, visible… Furthermore, they too undergo a skip of that higher level of difference. Basically, spectrums are composed of spectrums and a part of spectrums. This reveals that there is a sorted nested pattern of divisions of the levels of composition of the kinds within the spectrum.

32

Relations Space – Nested Patterns The relations within the infinite expansion of relations space form nested patterns. Another property of Relations Space is that the relations within the infinite expansion form nested patterns. Relations are composed of relations and are a part of relations. Thus, the elements within the infinite expansion of Relations Space form nested patterns. The human body is composed arms, legs, hands, feet, head, shoulders, stomach, back, and chest. However, each of those parts is composed of parts. The arms are composed of parts; the legs are also composed of parts, even the hands, feet, head, shoulders, stomach, back and chest. Also, each of the parts that comprise them is composed of parts as well. Even the human body is nested within a much larger form we call the Earth. The Earth is nested in a much larger form we call the solar system. The solar system is nested in a much larger form we call the galaxy. In each of those levels of composition there is a sort of skip from one to the next, it does not flow perfectly smoothly; therefore, it is nested. Events in time are also nested. Each one is a part of the other and even the other are composed of parts. Large events are comprised with smaller events and even the smaller events are comprised of even smaller ones. It does not flow smoothly, but rather skips in a nested way. The Universe itself is composed of large groups of energy. Every one of those groups is composed of smaller groups of energy and each of those groups, and so on. Thus, as we can see, the relations within the infinite expansion of Relations Space form nested patterns of the relations

Comparative Space – Nested Patterns The comparatives within the infinite expansion of comparative space form nested patterns. As previously iterated, Comparative Space is simply Kinds and Relations Space unified together. The skipping differences of the levels of parts of spectrums of kinds, and the skipping divisions of the levels of parts of forms or systems of relations creates the skipping differences and divisions of Comparative Space. Comparative Space is like our normal three dimensional space that comprise our Universe. The normal space is composed of constellations, 33

galaxies, star systems, planets, rocks, and so forth. Comparative Space is similar. It is composed of larger units of knowledge, which contains smaller units of knowledge, which is composed of smaller units of knowledge, and so on. This is the nested patterns of Comparative Space. As with the skipping differences and divisions of relations and kinds, so the skipping levels of composition of the comparatives within Comparative Space.

Kinds Transitivity If two or more things are kind, then they each are kind to each of their kinds. Kinds Transitivity involves the interconnectivity of all kinds. It involves the oneness of the extension of all things within Kinds Space: If two or more things are kind, then they each are kind to each of their kinds: If red is kind to orange and orange is kind to yellow, then red is kind to yellow. Red, orange, and yellow are all colors. Likewise, if another is kind to either of the colors, then the remaining ones are also kind to it If triangle is kind to square and square is kind to pentagon, then triangle is kind to pentagon. Triangle, square, and pentagon are all shapes. Likewise, if another is kind to either of the shapes, then the remaining ones are also kind to it If love is kind to joy and joy is kind to excitement, then love is kind to excitement. Love, joy, and excitement are all emotions. Likewise, if another is kind to either of the emotions, then the remaining ones are also kind to it If airplane is kind to car and car is kind to boat, then airplane is kind to boat. Airplane, car, and boat are all means of transportation. If another is kind to airplane, car, or boat, then so will it be to the remaining kinds. If pencil is kind to pen and pen is kind to marker, then pencil is kind to marker. Pencil, pen, and marker are all writing utensils. If another is kind to pencil, pen, or marker, then so will it be to the remaining kinds. By going down the list of all possible kinds within any Kinds Integration, we can conclude by Kinds Transitivity that if two or more things are kinds, then they each must be kind to each of their kinds.

34

Relations Transitivity If two or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their relations. Relations Transitivity involves the interconnectivity of all relations. It involves the oneness of the extension of all things within Relations Space: If two or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their relations: With this principle of understanding, this involves deduction and the property of interconnectivity within relations space. For example, let's say you are sitting in your house, watching the news. Suddenly, you see through your window a car pull into the driveway. Seconds later, you hear the door shut. Afterwards, you hear someone knocking on the door. You answer it, and it happens to be a relative of yours. Now with that event, the entire time of your awareness of it was Relations Integration. First, was seeing the car in the window. Second, was hearing the door shut. Third, was hearing a knock on the door. Fourth, was seeing your relative. Relations Car in Window

Door Shut

Knock on Door

Relative

With those four events, we mentally group them together into one: The relative was related to the knock on the door. The knock on the door was related to the car door being shut. The car door being shut was related to the car driving pass window. According to the rule of transitivity of relations, then: If the relative is related to the knock on the door, and the knock on the door is related to the car door being shut, then the relative is also related to the car door being shut. Or since the car door being shut is related to the drive by the window, then the relative is also related to the drive by the window.

35

Therefore:

Therefore:

Car in Window is related to Relative because it is related to Car Door Shut, and Car Door Shut is related to knock on door, and Knock on Door is related to Relative. Additional Examples: Winter is related to snow. Snow is related to crystals. Therefore, winter is related to crystals. Boat is related to water. Water is related to fish. Therefore, boat is related to fish. Closed eyes are related to sleep. Sleep is related to dreaming. 36

Therefore, closed eyes are related to sleep and dreaming. Bank is related to money. Money is related to buying things. Therefore, bank is related to buying things. Light is related to 'fasted speed'. Eyes are related to light. Therefore, eyes are related to 'fasted speed'. Books are related to reading. Reading is related to information. Therefore, books are related to information. Water evaporation is related to clouds. Clouds are related to rain. Rain is related to watering plants. Therefore, water evaporation is related to watering plants. Einstein is related to relativity. Relativity is related to time travel. Therefore, Einstein is related to time travel. Past is related to present. Present is related to future. Therefore past is related to future. Foot is related to shoe. Shoe is related to Shoe Factory. Shoe Factory is related to Shoe Factory Founder. Therefore, foot is related to Shoe Factory and Shoe Factory Founder. Wings are related to birds. Birds are related to the sky. The sky is related to air. Therefore, wings are related to air. Pen is related to ink. Ink is related to paper. Paper is related to wood. Therefore, pen is related to wood. Evolution is related to change. Change is related to time. Therefore, evolution is related to time. Brain is related to perception. Perception is related to energy. Therefore, brain is related to energy. With Relations Transitivity, we can notice that if two or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their relations.

37

Comparative Transitivity If four or more things are comparative, then they each are comparative to each of their comparatives. Comparative Transitivity is the property of distant interconnectivity of the comparatives within Comparative Space. Just as the kinds involves Kinds Transitivity, and the relations involves Relations Transitivity so the Comparatives involve Comparative Transitivity. Consider the following Comparative Unit: Eye

Light

Ear

Sound

Eye is to Light as Ear is to Sound are all Comparatives. In the case of Comparative Transitivity, if one new thing is comparative to either one of them, then remaining comparatives are also comparative to it: Eye

Light

Ear Sound Tongue Taste Since 'Tongue' and 'Taste' are added to the Comparative Unit, then if 'Eye' is to 'Light' as 'Ear' is to 'Sound', and 'Ear' is to 'Sound' as 'Tongue' is to 'Taste', then 'Eye' is to 'Light' as 'Tongue' is to 'Taste'. If more is added to the Comparative Unit, then addition can be deduced concerning Comparative Transitivity: Eye

Light

Colors

Ear Sound Notes Tongue Taste Flavors The Comparative Transitivity of this particular Comparative Unit can be deduced in many ways. One particular way is to notice that any four words within the Comparative Space that share the same Relations and Kinds of space, one of each, then they are comparatives. This is because if the original four are comparatives and two kinds are added as comparatives to light and sound (Colors and Notes), then eye and ear are also comparatives two Colors and Notes. Furthermore, since Ear and Notes are comparatives to Tongue and Flavors, then so likewise is Eye and Colors. Comparative Transitivity, as with Kinds and Relations Transitivity, involve the distant interconnectivity of all things comparative. If four or more things are 38

comparatives, then they must also be comparative to each of their comparatives.

Kinds Relationship Measurement The more alike are two or more kinds, the greater their kinds relationship measurement. Kinds Relations Measurement is an element of Kinds Division and Integration. All things may be different and alike, but some things are more alike and different than others. Some things may be more distinct from each other then two other things are from each other. Similarly, two things may be more alike to each other than two other things are to each other. This ability of Kinds Space is noticing the Kinds Relationship Measurement, which has a greater quantity the more alike are two or more things. Examples include: Two people may be more alike than two other people. Therefore, those people who are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship Measurement. However, those people who are less alike have a lower Kind Relationship Measurement. Two hats may be more alike than two other hats. Therefore, those hats that are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship Measurement. However, those hats that are less alike have a lower Kind Relationship Measurement. Two birds may be more alike than two other birds. Therefore, those birds that are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship Measurement. However, those birds that are less alike have a lower Kind Relationship Measurement. Two thoughts may be more alike than two other thoughts. Therefore, those thoughts that are more alike have a greater Kinds Relationship Measurement. However, those thoughts that are less alike have a lower Kind Relationship Measurement.

Relations Relationship Measurement The more related are two or more relations, the greater their relations relationship measurement. Relations Relationship Measurement concerns the amount of 39

relatedness of two or more things. When a given number of relations are more related, or more likely to work together, then those relations have a greater Relations Relationship Measurement. Likewise, when a given number of relations are less related, or less likely to work together, then the relations are less related and have a lower Relations Relationship Measurement. Two relations such as a duck and a pond they swim in have a greater Relations Relationship Measurement than a duck and a desert. Ducks are more likely to work together with ponds, however, a desert is hardly related to them; therefore, the Relations Relationship Measurement is smaller. Two relations such as a boat and fishermen have a greater Relations Relationship Measurement than a boat and astronaut. A boat and fisherman are more likely to work together. However, an astronaut is less likely to work together and has a smaller Relations Relationship Measurement. Two relations such as a water and ice have a greater Relations Relationship Measurement than water and coal. Water and ice are ideas more associated together. However, coal is less related to them and has a lower Relations Relationship Measurement. Two relations such as tree and leaves have a greater Relations Relationship Measurement than a tree and a cloud. Tree and leaves are ideas more associated together. However, a cloud is less related to them and has a lower Relations Relationship Measurement.

Comparative Relationship Measurement The more alike and related are four or more comparatives, the greater their comparative relationship measurement. The comparatives within Comparative Space that are closer together are more alike and related. Thus, they have a greater Comparative Relationship Measurement than comparatives that are farther away. In the following example, comparatives with a greater Comparative Relationship Measurement are closer together and those with lesser are farther apart: Teeth Toothbrush Toothpaste Hair Hands Shampoo Skin Rag Soap In the previous Comparative Unit, Teeth, Toothpaste, Skin and Soap, 40

have the lowest Comparative Relationship Measurement. This is because they are farthest apart. However, hair, hands, skin, and rag, as well as all other comparatives with the same distance, have a greater Comparative Relationship measurement. If more were added to the Comparative Unit, then those that are farthest apart would decrease in Comparative Relationship Measurement.

Kinds Order Spectrums of kinds must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those that are most alike are closest together and those least alike farthest apart. Before being able to truly understand a Kinds Integration, there needs to be some degree of Kinds Order. The order of kinds within Kinds Space is where those that are most alike are closest together and those least alike farthest apart. For example: The numbers 1 through 10 are all distinct. However, not all are equally as distinct to each and every one. When grouping them together into kinds without ordering them as most alike closest together, we get: 9 2 3 6 7 1 8 4 5 10

As is apparent, there's not much meaning when there's low Kinds Order: 1 is more alike to 2 than 1 is to 7 or 8. Yet, we have those two numbers closer together to 1 than 2. 8 is more alike to 7 and 9 than 1 and 4. Yet, we have those numbers (1 and 4) closer to 8 than 7 and 9. The difference between 9 and 4 is 5. The difference between 4 and 7 is 3. Therefore, 4 and 7 should be closer than 9 and 4. 10 is more alike to 9 than it is to 5. Yet, we have 5 closer to 10 than 9. Their quantities are of different magnitudes, but there are also those with closest magnitudes than the others.

41

As is apparent, there's not much meaning when the group of numbers aren't arranged where those most alike are closest together. Therefore, by putting them in their order, we can more easily understand them and notice them kinds: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

In the previous example, those most alike, or closest in magnitude, are closest together, and those least alike are farthest apart. With this type of ordering, understanding them as kinds is made much easier. Orange Purple Yellow Blue Green Red In

the previous example, we have the colors arranged randomly.

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple In this example we have them arranged with Kinds Order: Red and yellow have a closer frequency and wavelength to orange than orange has to all the remaining colors. Orange and green have a closer frequency and wavelength to yellow than yellow has to all the remaining colors. Yellow and blue have a closer frequency and wavelength to green than green has to all the remaining colors.

42

Green and purple have a closer frequency and wavelength to blue than blue has to all the remaining colors. Least alike closer together: Liquid Plasma Gas Solid Least alike farthest apart: Gas Liquid Solid Plasma Gases are more alike to liquids, than they are to solids and Plasma. Liquids are more alike to gas and solids than they are to plasma. Solids are more alike to liquid and plasma than they are to gases. Plasma is more alike to solids, than it is to liquid and gases. In the previous examples, it is apparent that there needs to be some degree of Kinds Order for understanding. And this is done by arranging those that are most alike as closest together and those least alike as farthest apart.

Relations Order Forms of relations must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those that are most related are closest together and those least related farthest apart. In order to understand a Relations Integration there needs to be some degree Relations Order. Consider the following sentence: “The Cow ate its food.” Each of those words is related to each other but only because of the way they are arranged in relationship to each other. If we rearranged the words into “food The Cow its Ate,” understanding them as relations, or working together becomes hideous. There’s not a very a good possibility we are able to understand the integration. In the case of the first sentence, those that were most related were closest together, and those least 43

related farthest apart. In the case of the second, those that were most related were apart. Now let’s take the entire previous paragraph and determine the order of relations: The following group of relations in the previous paragraph starting with “If we rearranged…” is structured where those most related are closest together, and those least related farthest apart. Here it is again: “If we rearranged, the words into “food The Cow its Ate,” understanding them as relations, or working together becomes hideous. There’s not a very a good possibility we are able to understand the integration. In the case of the first sentence, those that were most related were closest together, and those least related farthest apart. In the case of the second, those that were most related were apart.” Now if we arrange them were those that are least related closer together and those most related farther apart, we get: “apart. If were we related rearranged, most the were words that into those "food second, The the Cow of its case Ate," the understanding In them apart. As farthest relations, related or least working those together and becomes together hideous. closest There's were not related a most very were a that good those possibility sentence, we first are the able of to case understand the the In integration.” In the later paragraph, it is not very easy to understand the given form of relations. The given form has all the parts of the first paragraph, but it is not with relations order. It is not arranged where those that are most related are closest together, and those least related farthest apart. It is rather the opposite. So we need Relations Order for understanding a given form of relations. Things in our everyday life also need Relations Order for understanding. Cars, for example, if they had wheels on top rather than on the bottom, and the car seat facing the ground, and everything else randomly arranged, it would be very difficult to understand the form – it would be more difficult to see the given form of relations. If a humans parts weren’t ordered as they normally are, we’d think it were a different creature, and in fact not even understand what it is. If the rooms of a house had the compositions of each other room, such as dishes in the bathroom, television in the closet, stairs going outside; refrigerator on the roof, and so forth, it wouldn't be very easy to understand them as relations. Thus, in order to do so, we need a given amount of Relations Order for the understanding of relations.

44

Comparative Order Comparatives within a comparative unit must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those that are most alike and related are closest together and those least alike and related farthest apart. Now as with kinds and relations, in order to understand a Comparative Unit, there needs to be some degree of Comparative Order. Within any given Comparative Unit, kinds are arranged vertically, and relations horizontally, or at least that they are perpendicular to each other within any comparative system. The kinds are order where those that are more alike are closest together and those least alike farthest apart. The relations are ordered horizontally where those that are more related are closer together and those least related farther apart. Thus, this creates the comparatives within comparative space being closer together to those more related and alike, and farther apart from those less related and alike Examples include: Arranged where those that are most alike and related are closest together: Blood Air Food Electrons

Vessels Wind Pipes Esophagus Nerves

Heart Lungs Intestines Brain

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are not closest together Air Esophagus Electrons Wind Pipes

Vessels Intestines Lungs Nerves

Heart Vessels Food Blood

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are closest together: Christmas Day New Years Day Easter Day Independence Day Halloween Day Thanks Giving Day

Christmas Date New Years Date Easter Date Independence Date Halloween Date Thanks given Date

Arranged where those that are most alike and related are not closest together

45

Independence Day New Years Date Easter Day Independence Date Easter Date Christmas Day

Halloween Day Thanks Giving Date Christmas Date New Years Day Halloween Date Thanks Give Day

With the previous examples, there needs to be some degree of comparative order for understanding. This is emphasized by those that are most alike and related are closer together, and that the relations and kinds are ordered perpendicularly.

Kinds Quantity Within any given spectrum of kinds, there exists a specific Kinds Quantity. Kinds Quantity is the number of kinds we perceive within a given Kinds Integration. Being aware of a specific spectrum, the number of distinct kinds can be counted. That number will be equal to the Kinds Quantity. Examples include: There are many kinds of stars in the Universe. We can count those many kinds of stars to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct stars is equal to the Kinds Quantity. There are many kinds of life on earth. We can count those many kinds of life to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct life is equal to Kinds Quantity. There are many kinds of numbers. We can count those many kinds of numbers to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct numbers is equal to the Kinds Quantity. There are many kinds of books. We can count those many kinds of books to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct books is equal to the Kinds Quantity. There are many kinds of past events. We can count those many kinds of past events to be a specific number. That specific number of distinct past events is equal to the Kinds Quantity.

46

Relations Quantity Within any given form of relations, there exists a specific relations quantity. Relations Quantity is the number of relations we perceive within a given Relations Integration. Being aware of a specific system, the number of relations can be counted. That number will be equal to the Relations Quantity. Examples include: A cup is composed of many parts of energy. The cup as a whole is a group of relations that work together. We can attempt to count, or estimate, the number of parts that the cup is composed of. A tree is composed of many parts of energy. The tree as a whole is a group of relations that work together. We can attempt to count, or estimate, the number of parts that the tree is composed of. The earth is composed of many parts of energy. The earth as a whole is a group of relations that work together. We can attempt to count, or estimate, the number of parts that the earth is composed of. A frequency of light is composed of many parts. Within a given period of time, the number of waves that pass a given point can be counted. The number will be equal to the Relations Quantity. Space itself is an extension. It is composed of units within space. Thus, those units that comprise it can be counted, or estimated. The number will be equal to Relations Quantity An entire story is composed of many words. All those words work together to create the story. We can attempt to count, or estimate, the number of words of the given story.

Comparative Quantity Within any given unit of comparatives, there exists a specific comparative quantity. Comparative Space is composed of comparatives. The number of comparatives within a given portion of Comparative Space is equal to the Comparative Quantity. Since comparatives are the equivalents of kinds and relations, comparative quantity is the sum of the relations ad kinds quantity of a given Comparative Unit: 47

Here are some examples from the previous comparative units: Blood Air Food Electrons

Vessels Wind Pipes Esophagus Nerves

Heart Lungs Intestines Brain

This Comparative Unit contains twelve comparatives. Each spectrum is contains of four kinds, or Kinds Quantity. Each Relations Integration contains three relations, or Relations Quantity. Relations Quantity x Kinds Quantity is Equal to Comparative Quantity. Christmas Day New Years Day Easter Day Independence Day Halloween Day

Christmas Date New Years Date Easter Date Independence Date Halloween Date

This Comparative Unit has a Comparative Quantity of ten. Its Kinds Quantity in each spectrum is five. Its Relations Quantity in each row is two. Thus, its Comparative Quantity is equal to its Relations Quantity x its Kinds Quantity.

Kinds Density The greater the number of kinds within a given portion of kinds space, the greater the kinds density. Kinds Density refers to the number of kinds within any fixed portion of Kinds Space. As matter density exists in the physical world, so Kinds Density exists in the comparative world. As the greater the number of particles within a given portion of space, the greater the matter density, so the greater the number of kinds per kinds space, the greater the Kinds Density. Examples include: The Kind Integration of the many kinds of shapes is known to particular people. However, one person may know of more different kinds of shapes per Kinds Awareness than another. In this case, the person has a much greater Kinds Density of the idea 'shapes'. The Kinds Integration of the many kinds of languages is known to

48

particular people. However, one person may know of more different kinds of languages per Kinds Awareness than another. In this case, the person has a much greater Kinds Density of the idea 'languages'. The Kinds Integration of the many kinds of experiences is known to particular people. However, one person may know of more different kinds of experiences per Kinds Awareness than another. In this case, the person has a much greater Kinds Density of the idea 'experiences'.

Relations Density The greater the number of relations within a given portion of relations space, the greater the relations density. Relations Density refers to the number of relations within any fixed portion of Relations Space. As Kinds Density exists within Kinds Space, so with Relations Density exists within Relations Space. The greater the number of relations per unit of Relations Awareness, the greater the Relations Density. This kind of density is the normal density we see in our every day life. Physicists explain density as mass per unit volume. With this principle, including a greater number of things, relations are the mass, and Relations Space is the volume. The greater the number of relations per Relations Space, the greater the Relations Density. This applies not only to matter and space, but to all forms of Relations Integration. Time, for example, is no different than space. It is an extension composed of events. A wave occurs within time and various waves have various frequencies. That frequency is the number of times a given part of the wave passes a given point within a finite number of time. The greater the frequency of the wave, the greater the density it has within time. Frequency is velocity divided by wavelength. Just as Density is Mass Per Unit Volume, so Frequency is Velocity Divided by Wavelength. From those two equations, we can unite them with a common description. The relationship between Relations Awareness, Relations, and relations density is as follows: Relations Density = Relations/Relations Awareness. This includes the density of matter within space, the density of occurrences within time, and any other form of Relations Integration.

Comparative Density The greater the number of comparatives within any given portions of comparative space, the greater the comparative density. Comparative Density refers to the number of comparatives within any fixed portion of Comparative Space. As Kinds and Relations Density exists within 49

Kinds and Relations Space, so Comparative Density exists within Comparative Space. The greater the number of comparatives per unit of Comparative Awareness, the greater the Comparative Density. The following Comparative Unit contains one with greater and less density: Comparative Unit with less density: Book Writer Song Singer Comparative Unit with more density: Book Writer Book Publisher Song Singer Song Producer In the latter Comparative Unit, it contains more detail of ideas within the four cell space than the first comparative unit. Therefore, we can say that it has a greater Comparative Density.

Kinds Common Description Those things we group together as if they were alike, we give common descriptions. When we integrate distinct things by Kinds Integration, we give them a Kinds Common Description. This mentally programs our mind to mentally integrate the given number of distinct things. Here are a few examples: There are many distinct bodies that revolve around the sun. However, we can group them all and give them a Kinds Common Description by denoting them all as 'planets'. There are many distinct things that are built for people to live in. However, we can group them all and give them a Kinds Common Description by denoting them all as 'a home'. There are many distinct things in the Universe in which we are able to know and understand. However, we can group them all together and give them a Kinds Common Description by denoting them all as 'everything'. Addition examples include:

Kinds Common Description 1: 50

In the previous example, even though all those forms are distinct, by separating them from all other distinct things in the Universe, we can group only them together as one and give them all a Kinds Common Description in which we infer by the name 'fruit'.

Kinds Common Description 2:

In the previous example, even though all those forms are distinct, by separating them from all other distinct things in the Universe, we can group them together as one and give them all a Kinds Common Description in which we infer by the name 'shapes'.

Kinds Common Description 3:

51

In the previous example, even though all those forms are distinct, by separating them from all other distinct things in the Universe, we can group them together as one and give them all a Kinds Common Description, in which we infer by the name 'colors'. Within a Comparative Unit, the Kinds Common Description comes after the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions; the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions come before the Kinds Common Description. When we attempt to describe Kinds Common Descriptions the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions come before the common description. For example, the human hand is composed of five fingers. Each of those fingers is different but we apply them a Kinds Common Description. The kind of finger we are referring to has a description that comes before the kinds common description 'finger': Correct: Pinky Finger Ring Finger Middle Finger Index Finger Thumb Finger Incorrect: Finger Pinky Finger Ring Finger Middle Finger Index Finger Thumb The Kinds Uncommon Descriptions are: Pinky, Ring, Middle, Index, and Thumb. The Kinds Common Description is Finger. As we can see the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions Proceed the Kinds Common Description, this is when we are applying them within a comparative unit.

52

Applying common kinds descriptions to uncommon kind descriptions and uncommon kinds descriptions to common kinds descriptions increases our kinds integration and division of the kinds. As previously noted, our mind has the ability to group together things that are alike and give them a common description. It also has the ability to divide apart things that are different and give them an uncommon description. However, what would happen if we were to do them at the same time? What would happen if we group and divide a group of different things at the same time? We will give Kinds Common Descriptions uncommon descriptions and Kinds Uncommon Descriptions Common Descriptions: Kinds of Colors: Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple Thus: Red Color Orange Color Yellow Color Green Color Blue Color Purple Color In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (color). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divides apart distinct things. Kinds of Animals: Land Air Water Ground

53

Thus: Land Animals Air Animals Water Animals Ground Animals In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (land, air, water, and ground) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (animals). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things. Kinds of Matter: Solid Liquid Gas Plasma Thus: Solid Matter Liquid Matter Gas Matter Plasma Matter In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (solid, liquid, gas, and plasma) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (matter). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things. Kinds of Transportation: Water Ground Land Air Space Thus: Water Transportation

54

Ground Transportation Land Transportation Air Transportation Space Transportation In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (water, ground, land, air, and space) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (transportation). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things. Kinds of Seasons: Spring Summer Fall Winter Thus: Spring Season Summer Season Fall Season Winter Season In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (spring, summer, fall, and winter) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (Season). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things. Kinds of Emotions: Joy Love Hope Determination Excitement Thus: Joy Emotion Love Emotion

55

Hope Emotion Determination Emotion Excitement Emotion In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (joy, love, hope, determination, and excitement) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (emotion). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divide apart the distinct things. Kinds of Dimensions Length Width Height Time Thus: Length Dimension Width Dimension Height Dimension Time Dimension In the previous example, the kinds are divided by giving them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions (Length, width, height, and time) and at the same time grouped by giving them a Kinds Common Description (dimensions). The Uncommon Kinds Descriptions are located to the left, and the Kinds Common Description preceding each of the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. By doing so, it programs our mind to group together and divides apart the distinct things. Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as alike. One Word Descriptions When considering anything we know and its corresponding name or description, that thing or idea is always more than one. The word 'in', for example, can apply to a variety of situations: Perhaps you are looking in your closet for something to wear. Someone asks, “What are you doing?"

56

You reply with: "I am looking IN the closet." Perhaps you are swimming in your swimming pool. Someone asks, "What are you doing?" You reply with, "I am swimming IN the pool." Perhaps you are about to get into your car to go to work. Someone asks, "What are you doing?" You reply with, "I am getting IN to the car." Perhaps you are pouring water into a cup. Someone asks, "What are you going?" You reply with, "I am pouring water IN to the cup" In each of the previous examples, we described the concept of 'in'; however, no 'in' was exactly alike. The description 'in' is a one word description, however, in our mind it applies to more than one thing we consider as alike. What we've done is just given them, the distinct things, a Kinds Common Description. Nevertheless, they apply to more than one thing we consider as alike. There are various other kinds of ‘in such as’: 'In' a refrigerator 'In' a boat 'In' a food store 'In' the mind 'In' the house 'In' the world 'In' the book The word is one thing, but it is describing more than one thing we consider as alike. Another important thing to acknowledge is that no 'in' is alike. For example, you can be swimming in a lake, and another person in a different lake. Thus, you can say you are swimming in the lake, and you can say he is swimming in the lake. However, once again, those are slightly different ideas that we mentally group together by Kinds Integration. We use one word to describe them, but in the real world they are more than one thing. The word 'nail' is a corresponding description, but it applies to more than one thing we consider as alike: There are many nails on earth. However, there is no nail alike. There are

57

large nails and small nails and nails of many kinds, but we can still group them together by giving them a Kinds Common Description. The corresponding description, however, applies to a great variety of things we consider as alike. The word 'thought' is a corresponding description, but it applies to more than one thing we consider as alike: There are many thoughts on earth. However, there is no thought alike. There are large thoughts and small thoughts and thoughts of many kinds, but we can still group them together by giving them a Kinds Common Description. The corresponding description, however, applies to a great variety of things we consider as alike. Each moment in time, we may ponder a given thought. However, during our entire lifetime, we've produced too many thoughts to count. The idea of a 'thought' is rather a group of many things that we know or understand. We consider them as alike, so we group them together by Kinds Integration. No thought during our life is alike. Neither on earth is there any thought exactly alike. There are billions upon billions of thoughts created each minute throughout earth and the Universe. However, with the one little word 'thought' we can mean a great variety of things. The idea of 'time' is no different than a nail or thought. Right now, we are aware of our experience of time. However, no time idea is really alike. A person can be on a different planet with a different time frame. This person can still call it 'time' even thou they are different. You can also be twenty years old and call that year ‘time’ and be a different age and still call that different year, 'time'. The idea of ‘time’ is something we really mean by more than one thing: different things that we consider as most alike and group together with a corresponding description. If you and five friends are watching a television and, suddenly, each of you starts laughing, every one of you will all be 'laughing', yet if you look closely in the physical world instead of that of description, you will see that no laughter by each of you is exactly alike. In fact, no persons' laugh is exactly alike. However, with the one word 'laughter' we can mean a greater number of things we consider as alike. More Than One Word Descriptions When describing something we know, not always does it have to be with one word. Description can be as long as it likes. Description can be an entire bibliography about someone's life. It can be a short sentence describing an event. The premise, although, in both cases is the same: we are using symbols, words, letters, or any other form of symbolization to describe something we

58

know. There really is no difference of calling something 'apple', or describing an event such as, "He is running down the road." In both cases, they are both describing something we know. Since more than one word descriptions can be used to describe something we know, and they’re basically the same thing, and since every word that we use to describe something really means a large number of unique, we can conclude that it also applies to descriptions that involve more than one word. For example, say we describe something we know saying: "The Planet Rotates on its Axis." In this example, we are doing the same thing. We know something as: ‘The earth rotating on its axis.’ As with describing something round, red, and on a tree an 'apple'; as with describing something we know or understand as 'in', we can describe something we know or understand as "The Planet Rotates on its Axis." As with 'apple', no apple is alike, however, with the one little word we can mean a great many things, so with the description, "The Planet Rotates on its Axis". We can say the same thing for all planets known or understood. Even concerning the description of our individual planet across the continuum of time, we can say, "The Planet is rotating on its axis," yet the description applies to more than one thing we consider as alike. There is no moment in time in which the earth is rotating in the exact same fashion as its previous. Another person living in the past or future could say the exact same thing. The truth, however, is that throughout time the earth is spinning at slight different speeds, in slightly differently places, and with slightly different circumstances. Yet, we can all still give them a common description. Consider even longer descriptions such as: "As the boat sailed across the sea, the fishermen cast their hooks into the water. Each of them received a fish, and they enjoyed their dinner that night. The following morning, they all awoke to a bright and sunny day. The Captain grabbed a hold of his binoculars and looked across, and saw the land. They were joyous beyond measure that they were soon going to inhabit an island..." The previous description is a complete event. However, we can say the exact same thing about different people on different parts of the planet. We can also say it about different people on different planets in the Universe. As with the description of a 'thought'; or the description, "The planet rotates on its axis," so also the description of that entire event applies to more than one thing we consider as alike.

59

Relations Common Description Those things we group together as if they were related, we give a common description. One Word Descriptions When we mentally integrate things with Relations Integration, we give them a Relations Common Description. A computer is composed of many divide parts that work together. We give them all a Relations Common Description by naming them all 'computer'. Molecules that comprise the sea all work together. We give them all a Relations Common Description by naming them 'water' A person moving quickly from various parts in space and time are all related to each other. We give them all a Relations Common Description by naming them ‘running’. A large object composed of wood, windows, a chimney, and a roof are all related to each other. We can give them all a Relations Common Description by naming them all 'house'. Common 'togetherness' descriptions of relations are to mentally program our minds to group things into relations. Words program our mind to think in a specific way. The common description of relations is an effect of Relations Integration. We group them together as related with their Relations Common Description. Additional examples:

Relations Common Description 1:

60

In the 'house' example, even though the house is composed of many divided things, by separating them all from other divided things in the Universe, we can group them together as one and give them all a Relations Common Description.

Relations Common Description 2:

In the 'face' example, even though the face is composed of many divided things, by separating them all from other divided things in the Universe, we can group them together as one and give them all a Relations Common Description.

Relations Common Description 3:

61

With the 'tree' example, even though the tree is composed of many divided things, by separating them all from other divided things in the Universe, we can group them together as one and give them all a Relations Common Description. More than One Word Descriptions Common relation descriptions not only involve one word descriptions, but more than one word descriptions: “The building was built in 1942.” The sentence is a description like the previous one word descriptions. We are describing something we know or understand using words and by other forms of symbolization. Different parts of the description: The Building The Year The Process of its creation The Builders Those parts of relations are all divided things, yet we group them all 62

together by giving them a common description. This also applies to much larger descriptions involving sentences, paragraphs, and even entire books. Although there are many other parts with any given description, with the Relations Common Description we create simplicity by mentally grouping them together. Within a Comparative Unit, the Relations Common Description comes before the Relations Uncommon Descriptions; the Relations Uncommon Descriptions come after the Relations Common Description. Each finger on the human hand is also composed of relations. Each of those relations are divided but we apply them a Relations Common Description. The relation of the finger we are referring to has a description that comes after the relations common description 'finger': Correct: Finger Tip Finger Nail Finger Joint Finger Base Finger Side Incorrect: Tip Finger Nail Finger Joint Finger Base Finger Side Finger The Relations Uncommon Descriptions are: Tip, Nail, Joint, Base, and Side. The Relations Common Description is Finger. As we can see, the Relations Uncommon Descriptions follow the Relations Common Description; this is when we are applying them within a comparative unit. Applying common relations descriptions to uncommon relations descriptions and uncommon relations descriptions to common relations descriptions increases our relations integration and division of the relations. When we are faced with a Relations Integration, our mental unification of such relations can be programmically increased by giving them a common description. We notify their dividedness by their uncommon descriptions, but we can also group them together by giving them a common description. In the following examples, we will see how applying common relations descriptions to

63

uncommon relations descriptions increase our relations integration of the divided relations. Optic Nerve

Retina

Lens

Pupil

Iris

Cornea

With the previous relations uncommon descriptions, we can see their dividedness. For each thing that we know, we can give a common description. Those things are related, thus we’ve grouped them together horizontally by relations integration. However, we know that all six of those descriptions belong to the same given form of relations. We know that they all belong to ‘eye’. Thus we shall apply the common description ‘eye’ to each of relations integration uncommon descriptions: Eye Optic Nerve

Eye Retina

Eye Lens

Eye Pupil

Eye Iris

Eye Cornea

Thus as we can see, in relation to the first one, we can see them all as one by placing them horizontally within the comparative unit. However, by also giving them a common relations description, we can more easily see them as one. We can more easily integrate them as relations integration. Uncommon Relations Descriptions:

Monitor

Keyboard

PC Mouse

Speaker

Applying Common Description:

Computer Monitor Computer Keyboard Computer PC Computer Mouse Computer Speaker Uncommon Relations Descriptions:

Wheels Hood Windows Trunk Engine Doors Applying Common Description:

Car Wheels

Car Hood

Car Windows

Car Trunk

Car Engine

Car Doors

By applying common relations descriptions to uncommon relations descriptions, we can see that concerning relations integration, it increases. Experiments can be done with all words and all forms of relations integrations in the Universe. Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as related. Everything that we know or understand can be given a corresponding description. The description of kinds usually applies to more than one thing we 64

consider as alike. However, when we observe something in the Universe and give it a corresponding description, not only does it apply to a large spectrum of kinds but also to a given number of relations. This quantity is more than one even though the description is finite. For example, if we were to observe a 'tree', we know there are many different kinds of trees in which we can call ‘tree’. However, not only does the description 'tree' apply to many kinds of things, but it also describe a group of (more than one) things working together. Thus, when we observe it and say, "Tree," we are really meaning a group of relations. The tree itself is composed of many parts and its parts are composed of many parts, yet, we can group all of them with a common description. Even from outer space, we can observe the large planet we live on called 'Earth'. However, with that single word, we grouping a number of divided things as if they were one. The word itself is finite, but the parts that comprise it are infinite. Or, what about the word, 'motion'. Thus as we know, there has to be motion in order to perceive a unit of motion just as there needs to be matter to perceive a unit of matter. As physical objects are composed of smaller parts within space, so events are composed of smaller parts, or events, within time. Thus the word 'motion' just as a tree, mean a group of things. It means a group of events through time. Thus all of those events are relations. And thus we can give them all a common description and call them an ‘event’. Likewise, what about the word ‘emotion’? In order to perceive emotion, there needs to be parts to make up the emotion, just as there needs to be parts to make up an event. Everything that we know or understand is two or more relations or two or more kinds. Now once again, describing something known doesn't have to be limited to just one word. Let’s take the sentence, "The volcano is erupting". Now, in this case we are describing a group of things as one and given it a togetherness description. We know that to know and understand "The volcano is erupting," there needs to be a volcano; there needs to be lava; there needs to be time and space and so forth - Just as in order to know and understand a tree there needs to be leaves, trunk, and roots. Thus, the description "The volcano is erupting," is a description that describes the togetherness of relations, or parts, as if they were one. However, not only are there relations in the physical world, but also in the world of knowledge. For example the sentence, "Water evaporates at certain temperatures," is a form of relations. The sentence is composed of the word 'water'; the word 'evaporates'; the word 'at'; the word 'certain'; and the word 'temperatures'. Thus, they are a group of parts that make up a form just like a house; a boat; a thought; or a brain. Just as the tree is composed of leaves, branches, a trunk, and roots, and we can group them together and given them a common together description called a 'tree', so also with the sentence: "Water evaporates at certain temperatures." All those different parts have a common togetherness description called 'sentence'. The world of time also involves relations and common description. An

65

event, for example, can be grouped together as one. However, each event is composed of smaller events. And so it can be said that the event is composed of more than one relation even though it is given the common description 'event', For each thing we can know, we can give a corresponding description. And each description applies to more than one thing we consider as related.

Comparative Common Description Those things we group together as if they were comparatives, we give a common description. Comparative Integration allows comparatives to have a Comparative Common Description. The integration of comparatives involves the integration of relations and kinds and giving them both a common description. In the following examples, we will see how not only is there relations and kinds integration and description, but also Comparative Common Descriptions. In the following comparative unit there are a group of kinds and a group of relations: Pencil Pen Keyboard Voice

Lead Ink Pixel Color Sound Waves

Paper Paper Computer Monitor Speaker

Pen is to Lead is to Paper as Pen is to Ink is to Paper as Keyboard is to Pixel Color is to Computer Monitor as Voice is to Sound Waves is to Tape Now with Kind Integration we can give each spectrum of kinds within the Comparative Unit a common description. And with each form of relations we can do the same: Kinds Common Description: Tools for relaying Information: Spectrum 1: Pencil Pen Keyboard Voice Kinds Common Description: Tools used by those things that related information Spectrum 2:

66

Lead Ink Pixel Color Sound waves Kinds Common Description: Where the information is stored Spectrum 3 Paper Paper Computer Monitor Speaker Relations Common Description: Pencil System Communication Relations 1 Pencil, Lead, Paper Relations Common Description: Pen System Communication Relations 2 Pen, Ink, Paper Relations Common Description: Keyboard System Communication Relations 3 Keyboard, Pixel Color, Computer Monitor Relations Common Description: Voice System Communication Relations 4: Voice, Sound Waves, Speaker Comparative Common Description: Systems of Communication Comparative Unit: Eye

Sees

Light 67

Nose Ear Tongue Hands

Smells Hears Tastes Feels

Scent Sound Flavor Mass

Kinds Common Description for Senses Sensor Sensor Sensor Sensor Sensor

Sees Smells Hears Tastes Feels

Light Scent Sound Flavor Mass

Kinds Common Description for what each sensor does: Eye Nose Ear Tongue Hands

Senses Senses Senses Senses Senses

Light Scent Sound Flavor Mass

Thus Senses Kinds Division Descriptions = Seeing, Smelling, Hearing, Tasting, and Touching Kinds Common Description for what each is perceives: Eye Nose Ear Tongue Hands

Sees Smells Hears Tastes Feels

Waves Waves Waves Waves Waves

Thus, Waves Kinds Division Descriptions are = Light, Scent, Sound, Flavor, Mass Common Integration Description for the 3 related spectrums of kinds: Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors Sensors

Senses Senses Senses Senses Senses

Waves Waves Waves Waves Waves

68

Thus: Sensors Senses Waves Comparative Common Description: Systems of Perception Applying common comparative descriptions to uncommon comparative descriptions and uncommon comparative descriptions to common comparative descriptions increases our comparative integration and division of the comparative parts. Since Comparative Space is a combination of Relations Space and Kinds Space, by combining the principles of each of the dimensions, we can automatically create the principles of Comparative Space We know that with Kinds Integration we can group things together by giving them common kinds description and with Kinds Division we can divide them apart by giving them uncommon descriptions. We know that with Relations Integration we can group together things by giving them a common relations description and with Relations Division we can divide them and give them uncommon relations descriptions. Therefore, with Comparative Integration and Division, it is only a combination of the two as follows: Kinds Division: uncommon descriptions Kinds of Music: Jazz Rock Rap Dance Classical Kinds Integration: common descriptions Thus: Jazz Music Rock Music Rap Music Dance Music Classical Music Relations Division: uncommon descriptions

69

Relations of Music: Instruments Musicians Listeners Recordings Concerts Relations Integration: common descriptions Thus: Music Instruments Music Listeners Music Musicians Music Recordings Music Concerts Comparatives of Music: Kinds Division and Integration uncommon and common descriptions and Relations Division and Integration uncommon and common descriptions: Jazz Music Instruments Rock Music Instruments Rap Music Instruments Dance Music Instruments Classical Music Instruments

Jazz Music Listeners Rock Music Listeners Rap Music Listeners Dance Music Listeners Classical Music Listeners

Jazz Music Musicians Rock Music Musicians Rap Music Musicians Dance Music Musicians Classical Music Musicians

Jazz Music Recordings Rock Music Recordings Rap Music Recordings Dance Music Recordings Classical Music Recordings

Jazz Music Concerts Rock Music Concerts Rap Music Concerts Dance Music Concerts Classical Music Concerts

As we can see with the previous comparative unit, relations are to the left and right each other, and kinds are above and below each other. In each horizontal group, the common description is first and the uncommon description is second, and in each vertical group, the common description is second and the uncommon description first. Therefore, the common and uncommon comparative descriptions are simply a combination of

70

relations and kinds uncommon and common descriptions organized into a comparative unit. Here are some more examples: Kinds of Religions: Judaism Christianity Islam Hinduism Buddhism Taoism Thus: Judaism Religion Christianity Religion Islam Religion Hinduism Religion Buddhism Religion Taoism Religion Relations of Religions: Ministers Churches Teachings Beliefs Students Origination Thus: Religion Ministers Religion Churches Religion Teachings Religion Beliefs Religion Students Religion Origination Comparatives of Religion: Judaism Religion Ministers

Judaism Religion Churches

Judaism Religion Teachings

Judaism Religion Beliefs

71

Judaism Religion Students

Judaism Religion Origination

Christianity Religion Ministers Islam Religion Ministers Hinduism Religion Ministers Buddhism Religion Ministers Taoism Religion Ministers

Christianity Religion Churches Islam Religion Churches Hinduism Religion Churches Buddhism Religion Churches Taoism Religion Churches

Christianity Religion Teachings Islam Religion Teachings Hinduism Religion Teachings Buddhism Religion Teachings Taoism Religion Teachings

Christianity Religion Beliefs Islam Religion Beliefs Hinduism Religion Beliefs Buddhism Religion Beliefs Taoism Religion Beliefs

Kinds of Consciousness: Human Fish Cat Star Plant Thus: Human Consciousness Fish Consciousness Cat Consciousness Star Consciousness Plant Consciousness Relations of Consciousness Mind Soul Reality Force Awareness Thus: Consciousness Mind Consciousness Soul Consciousness Reality Consciousness Force Consciousness Awareness

72

Christianity Religion Students Islam Religion Students Hinduism Religion Students Buddhism Religion Students Taoism Religion Students

Christianity Religion Origination Islam Religion Origination Hinduism Religion Origination Buddhism Religion Origination Taoism Religion Origination

Comparative of Consciousness: Human Consciousness Mind Fish Consciousness Mind Cat Consciousness Mind Star Consciousness Mind Plant Consciousness Mind

Human Consciousness Soul Fish Consciousness Soul Cat Consciousness Soul Star Consciousness Soul Plant Consciousness Soul

Human Consciousness Reality Fish Consciousness Reality Cat Consciousness Reality Star Consciousness Reality Plant Consciousness Reality

Human Consciousness Force Fish Consciousness Force Cat Consciousness Force Star Consciousness Force Plant Consciousness Force

Human Consciousness Awareness Fish Consciousness Awareness Cat Consciousness Awareness Star Consciousness Awareness Plant Consciousness Awareness

Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as comparative. Comparative Common Description is no different than Relations and Kinds Common Description. Just as the common description of relations or kinds, applies to more than one thing we consider related or alike, so Comparative Common Description applies to more than one thing we consider as comparative. The description may be finite, but the number of relations and kinds per Comparative Common Description applies to more than one. 'Intelligence' is a description that applies to a large number of kinds of intelligence and a large number of relations of intelligence, and therefore it can apply to a large number of comparatives of intelligence. However, with just the single word 'intelligence' we really mean more than one. 'Money' is a description that applies to a large number of kinds of money and a large number of relations of money, and therefore it can apply to a large number of comparatives of money. However, with just the single word 'money' we really mean more than one. 'Education' is a description that applies to a large number of kinds of education and a large number of relations of education, and therefore it can apply to a large number of comparatives of education. However, with just the single word 'education' we really mean more than one.

73

Kinds Uncommon Description Those things we divide apart as if they were distinct, we give uncommon descriptions. When we divide similar things by Kinds Division, we give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions. This programs our mind to mentally divide the given number of similar things. Here are a few examples: There are many similar bodies that revolve around the sun. However, we can divide them all and give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions by denoting them as 'Mercury', 'Mars', 'Venus', 'Earth', 'Saturn', 'Jupiter', 'Uranus', 'Neptune', and 'Pluto'. There are many similar oceans on earth. However, we can divide them all and give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions by denoting them as 'Pacific Ocean', 'Atlantic Ocean', 'Indian Ocean', and 'Arctic Ocean'. There are many similar dimensions of space. However, we can divide them all and give them Kinds Uncommon Descriptions by denoting them as: 'Length', 'Width', and 'Breadth'. As Kinds Integration uses common descriptions, so Kinds Division uses uncommon descriptions:

Kinds Uncommon Descriptions 1

Kinds Uncommon Description 2:

74

With the shapes, by Kinds Integration we’ve given them all a Kinds Common Description. However, with Kinds Division, we can clearly divide the parts, and give them uncommon descriptions.

Kinds Uncommon Description 3:

We don’t have to always call them colors showing that they are alike, but we can show their distinction by giving them uncommon descriptions. Those things we consider as distinct we give uncommon descriptions.

Relations Uncommon Description The relations we separate as if they were divided, we give uncommon descriptions. As the integration of relations involves Relations Uncommon Descriptions, so the division of relations involves Relations Uncommon Descriptions. When we mentally divide apart things with Relations Division, we notify it by giving them uncommon descriptions. Examples of giving uncommon descriptions to things we want to divide 75

apart are as follows:

Relations Uncommon Descriptions 1:

In the house example, since we want to mentally divide the parts, we denote this by given them Relations Uncommon Descriptions: chimney, roof, windows, and door.

Relations Uncommon Descriptions 2:

In the face example, since we want to mentally divide the parts, we denote this by given them all Relations Uncommon Descriptions: eyes, nose, and mouth.

Relations Uncommon Descriptions 3:

76

In the tree example, since we want to mentally divide the parts, we denote this by giving them Relations Uncommon Descriptions: leaves, branches, and stem. In each of those previous examples, the parts are all connected things, yet we divided them apart by giving them uncommon descriptions.

Comparative Uncommon Description Those things we divide apart as if they were separate and distinct, we give uncommon descriptions. The elements within Comparative Space are all unique and divided. Many times we give them common descriptions by applying them with the same name; however, we can also give them Comparative Uncommon Descriptions to show their difference and dividedness. Looking back from the previous Comparative Unit of common description, the entire comparative unit was grouped into one description and called ‘systems of communication’: Systems of Communication However, by doing the opposite of Comparative Common Description, we can divide them into their comparative parts by giving them Comparative 77

Uncommon Descriptions. Pencil Pen Keyboard Voice

Lead Ink Pixel Color Sound Waves

Paper Paper Computer Monitor Speaker

Thus, ‘Systems of Communication’, was something that we knew, but there are things within it that can be comparatively divided. This is done by notifying their Comparative Uncommon Descriptions.

Kinds Main Parts Within any given spectrum of kinds, we can group and divide them into main kinds. During the perception of a spectrum of kinds, we have the ability to group those kinds into main kinds, main types, or Kinds Main Parts. For example: Main Kinds of Measurements: There is a spectrum of the many kinds of measurements in the Universe. However, of that entire spectrum we can group them all into a finite number of main types and give them such descriptions as: Mass Motion Time Space Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of measurements, we can group them into a smaller number of main kinds. Main Kinds of Foods There is a spectrum of many kinds of food in the Universe. However, of that entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of main types and give them such descriptions as: Deserts Fruits Vegetables Meats 78

Wheat and Grains Nuts Beans Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of food, we grouped them into a smaller number of main kinds. Main Kinds of Matter There is a spectrum of many kinds of matter in the Universe. However, of that entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of main types and give them descriptions such as: Gases Solids Liquids Plasma Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of matter, we can group them into a smaller number of many kinds. Main Kinds of Clothing There is a spectrum of many kinds of clothing in the Universe. However, of that entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of main types and give them such descriptions as: Foot Wear Leg Wear Upper Body Wear Hand Wear Head Wear And Decorative Wear Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of clothing, we can group them into a smaller number of many kinds. Main Kinds of Plants There is a spectrum of many kinds of plants in the Universe. However, of that entire spectrum of distinct things, we can group them into a smaller number of main types and give them such descriptions as: Herbs Shrubs

79

Trees Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of plants, we can group them into a smaller number of many kinds. Main Kinds of Seasons There is a spectrum of many days of weather. However, for simplicity, of that entire spectrum we can group them into a smaller number of main types and give them descriptions such as. Spring Summer Fall Winter Although there is a large spectrum of differences of the kinds of weather of each day, we can group them into a smaller number of many kinds.

Relations Main Parts Within any given form of relations, we can group and divide them into main parts. Relations also have Relations Main Parts. When we perceive a given group of relations, for simplicity, we can always divide that form, or group, into main parts. Examples include: A car can be divided into main parts such as: wheels, windows, cover, engine, seats, and so on. Even though the car is composed of much more, for simplicity we group the main ones. A fruit can be divided into main parts such as: stem, seeds, the fruit itself. Even though the fruit is composed of much more, for simplicity we group the main ones. A song can be divided into main parts such as: beginning, middle, and end. Even though the song is composed of much more, for simplicity we group the main ones. A hand can be divided into main parts such as: fingernails, fingers, 80

knuckles, palm, and back of hand. Even though the hand is composed of much more, for simplicity we group the main ones. An atom can be divided into main parts such as: electrons, protons, and neurons. Even though an atom is composed of much more, for simplicity we group the main ones.

Comparative Main Parts Within any given unit of comparatives, we can group and divide them into main parts. Comparative Units also have Comparative Main Parts. When we group and divide spectrums of kinds into smaller numbers, or descriptions, we are also determining portions of the main parts of a Comparative Unit. Likewise, when we group and divide forms of relations into smaller numbers, or descriptions, we are also determining portions of the main parts of a Comparative Unit. Kinds are organized vertically within Comparative Space, thus when we determine their main parts, we're also determining potions of Comparative Space. On the other end, relations are organized horizontally, thus, when we determine their main parts, we're also determining main parts of the Comparative Unit. The Comparative Main Parts of a Comparative Unit is a combination of the main parts of Kinds and Relations Space.

The World of Comparative Units Within any given comparative unit, kinds are perpendicular to relations. The structure of the Comparative Unit is that kinds are organized vertically and relations horizontally; but more so that they are perpendicular to each other. Together, they create comparatives within a Comparative Unit:

Difference Relates to Difference One of the most fundamental principles of comparative knowledge is that

81

Difference Relates to Difference. In fact, this describes everything in the Universe. Kinds Space involves perceive noticing the things of the universe as different. However, each of them is also proportionally related to something different as well. Also, the difference measurement of kinds is equal to the difference measurement of the Kind-Relations. Difference relates to difference. Examples: There are many kinds of plants on earth. Each plant is unique. This determines their difference. However, each plant has its own environment. Some are in deserts, some in jungles, some in lakes, some in forests, and some on mountain tops. Thus, different plants come from different environments. Difference relates to difference. Each of those different environments is on different places on earth. Difference relates to difference. And on those difference places on earth, they each experience different patterns of seasons. Difference relates to difference. Every unique person has come from their unique place at their unique time, by their unique parents. Each of their unique parents came from correspondingly unique parents, and so on. As we can see, difference relates to difference. Different types of clouds produce at different times of the day. Different kinds of plant produce at different times of the year. Different kinds of shoes are produce by different kinds of factories. Different kinds of factories are produced by different kinds of people. Different kinds of thoughts are produced, not for the same reason or the same cause, but for different reasons and causes. Different kinds of planets are in different places in space. Different types of stars have different amounts of energy. Different types of elements have different colors. Different types of inventions have come from different kinds of people. Different types of books are written from different types of people, in which have come from different places and times.

82

Different kinds of emotions are produced by different kinds of experiences, and each of those different kinds of experiences are produced from different things, and each of those things from different things and so on. Difference Relates to Difference. At different times in history there were different people and events. People wore different clothing and had different means of transportation. Different planets with different mass each contain different quantities of gravitational pull. Black holes are different from stars; therefore, they cause different affects. The principles of physics are all different, thus they are described differently and explain something different. Planets with different amounts of mass experience different times. For every different thing, it is related to something different. Difference relates to difference. Similarity Relates to Similarity The proportionally but inverse of, "Difference relates to difference," is that Similarity Relates to Similarity. This also describes everything in the Universe. Kinds Space involves perceive noticing the things of the universe as similar. Furthermore, each of them is also proportionally related to something similar as well. Also, the similarity measurement of kinds is equal to the similarity measurement of the Kind-Relations. Similarity relates to similarity. Examples: There are many kinds of plants on earth. Each plant has a degree of similarity to another. Similar plants have similar environments. Similar types of plants occupy deserts, similar types occupy jungles, similar types occupy lakes, similar types occupy forests, and similar types occupy mountain tops. Thus, alike plants come from alike environments. Similarity relates to similarity. Children with the same parents will have similar traits. Each of their parents came from correspondingly similar parents, and so on. Similar types of clouds produce at similar times of the day. Similar kinds of plant produce at similar times of the year.

83

Similar kinds of shoes are produce by similar kinds of factories. Similar kinds of factories are produced by similar kinds of people. Similar kinds of thoughts are produced for similar reasons and causes. . For every similar thing, it is related to something similar. Similarity relates to similarity. Divisions are kind to divisions. Another one of the most fundamental principles of knowledge is that the parts of relations each belong to their own equally divided spectrum of kinds. Although this is the inverse of "Difference relates to difference," new knowledge can also be gained. The earth is a group of relations. It is composed of clouds, water, continents, land animals, water animals, and air animals. Inside is composed the mantle and core. However, of all those parts they each belong to equally divided spectrums of kinds. This means that there are many other places in the Universe that have planets that are very similar to earth which fade away in difference like the colors of a rainbow. Each of the ‘earths’ are different; and there are an infinite of them, and their divided parts belong to divided spectrums. Connections are kind to connections. The proportionally but inverse that "Divisions are kinds to divisions" is that Connections are kind to Connections. The connections of relations each belong to their own equally connected spectrum of kinds. The human form contains relations. The nervous system, skeletal system, respiratory system, cardiovascular system, digestive system, urinary system, endocrine system, skin, immune system, muscular system, and nervous system are all connected. However, each of those connections belongs to equally connected spectrums of kinds. This means that there are many other forms that have systems very similar to ours. Furthermore, each of those distinct systems is kind to the other connections; their connected parts belong to connected spectrums. What applies to one spectrum of kinds applies to all spectrums of kinds, but differently according to their relative difference. Another one of the most important principles is that what applies to each spectrum, or the things related to it, also applies to other spectrums of kinds as well.

84

It can be thought of that spectrums of kinds are kinds to spectrum of kinds, in which they are. One of the rules of kinds is that if two or more things are kinds and one has an extra relation, then there exist corresponding relations to the remain kinds. Thus we can conclude, since spectrums of kinds are kinds, then what applies to one spectrum applies to all spectrums, but differently according to their relative difference. For example, in the life spectrum, we know we can divide them into groups. Therefore, within any spectrum we should be able divide them into groups as well. What applies to one spectrum applies to all spectrums. What applies to the light spectrum applies to the matter spectrum What applies to the matter spectrum applies to the emotional spectrum What applies to the emotional spectrum applies to the life spectrum What applies to the life spectrum applies to the star spectrum What applies to the star spectrum applies to the planes of existence spectrum What applies to the planes of existence spectrum applies to the silverware spectrum What applies to the silverware spectrum applies to the movie spectrum But all of these differently: according to their relative difference. So as we can see, spectrums of kinds all share similar properties. This can be noted by the principle that what applies to one spectrum applies to all the spectrums, but differently according to their relative difference. What applies to one form of relations applies to all forms of relations, but differently according to their relative difference. Similarly, as with the spectrum of kinds so also forms of relations. Whatever we come to associate with a given form of relations, we can conclude that it also applies to all relations, however, differently according to their relative difference. If we know a stove is a group of relations and we that the stove was created, therefore we can conclude that all relations forms are created. If we know that the earth is a group of relations and that it takes up space, therefore, not only does that form of relations take up space, but so also do all the other planets. So also events take up space within time. So also

85

do all things we consider as relations. If we were to think of a form of relations such as an entire day, we know that within the entire day it is composed of smaller units. Thus, we can conclude that with all forms of relations. Water is a group of relations. We know that water can be split, therefore, so also other relations integrations, but differently according to their relative difference. If two or more things are kinds and one has an extra relation, then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds. The relationship between the relations of each of the corresponding Kind-Relations is equal. We know that everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds. We know that everything belongs to an infinite space of relations. However, many times in life we encounter a group of kinds that have extra relations than the other kinds. This shows the future evolution of new relations to kinds. For example, we know that animals are a spectrum of kinds. We have animals such as Fish Land Animals Birds Now according to the principle, “If two or more things are kinds, and one has an extra relation, then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds,” then if we know that fish have fins, then we can automatically conclude that land animals have a sort of ‘fins’ for their environment. In this case, we call them 'legs'. And for birds, we call them 'wings'. Furthermore, if fish, land animals, and birds are kinds, and fish have a medium, or environment, in which they are able to move by their fins, then we can automatically conclude by the principle that there must be land animals that are to something as fish are to their environment. In the case of fish, we call it water; in the case of land animals, we call it earth. And the same goes for the birds in which we call their environment 'sky'. Also, what about such kinds as the functions of the human body? We know that since we can give them all a kinds common description ('functions'), then they are kinds. Therefore, what we know from one function of the human body, we can know to all the others, but differently. For example, we know that there are things that affect certain bodily functions. We know that there are other functions of the human body that are kind to such functions. Thus, since they are kind, we can conclude that if one

86

food or chemical does something to one function of the body, then so also will there be different foods and chemicals for all the remaining functions of the body. Thus, we have the spectrum of human bodily functions. And we have the food/chemical spectrum. Since "if two or more things are kinds and if one has an extra relation that there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds," then we can conclude that if a specific thing does for one function of the human body, then so also will something different to the remaining different functions. What about other things related to the functions of the human body? We know the eye is function. It belongs to the kinds. What things do we know that are related to the eye? We know that the telescope is related to the eye. Thus, we know that the five senses are kind to the eye; therefore, we can automatically conclude that since they are kind to it, and eye is related to the telescope (or has an extra relation), that for all the senses we can conclude that there exists a kind of telescope. Thus, there is a telescope for the ear; a telescope for the nose, the hands, the tongue, and so on. We can also conclude it to larger portions of the spectrum as well.

If two or more things are relations and one has an extra kind, then there exists corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. The relationship between the kinds of each of the corresponding Relation-Kinds is equal. Similarly, if two or more things are relations, and one has an extra kind, then there exist corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. And as a result, their relationships will remain equal: If we know that earth contains life, then we can automatically conclude that it is possible to create life on other planets as well. Earth and Life are Relations: Earth

Life

The other planets/celestial bodies are kinds, so earth has extra kinds than do earth life:

87

Thus based on the previous comparative unit, the principle states that there exists a way to create kinds of life on other planets such as Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, the celestial body Pluto and any others that are different from life on earth according to their planetary relative difference. It states that just as earth comes in many kinds, such as the planets, so ‘Earth Life’ comes in corresponding kinds. Thus we can conclude that there exists a way for different kinds of life to survive on all the different kinds of planets as do earth. The principle states that there are beings to Mercury, as there are Beings to Earth. That there are Beings to Venus, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, and all the remaining planets/celestial bodies as Earth life is to earth. If two or more things are relations, and one has an extra kind(s), then there exist corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. Comparative units can always be completed. As we can see, based on the previous two principles concerning finding corresponding relations and kinds, comparative units can always be completed. Whether we are attempting to find corresponding relations, or whether we are attempting to find corresponding kinds, each, in either case, can complete the comparative unit. The greater the distance between kinds the more work is needed to find their corresponding relations. With this principle, during the process of comparing kinds on farther sides of the spectrum, it gets harder to find all their corresponding relations. For example, matter is composed of solids, liquids, gases, and plasma. Now as previously explained, each of those states of matter is composed of more states of matter but for simplicities sake we divide them into 4 main kinds. If we were to look at liquids, we know that there are many kinds such as:

88

water, oil, gasoline, and so on. The principle states that it should be easier for us to find the corresponding relations between the water’s relations, the oil’s relations, and the gasoline’s relations, than to find the relations of the liquids to solids. We know that there’s water evaporation, therefore, since oil and gasoline are kinds, then evaporation exists for them as well but it will be different according to each of their relative difference. However, if we look at solids, since they are kind to liquids, then there exists evaporation within the solids realm as well. However, since when have we noticed or labeled any type of solid evaporation as water does? Usually, if we don’t mentally group them together, we give them different names. So what would be an example of evaporation in the realm of solids? Well, we know that water evaporates only at certain hot enough temperatures. Therefore, since solid is of greater density than water, we can conclude that at much hotter temperatures there is solid evaporation. However, it is easier to compare liquid evaporation to other, closer, and more alike liquid evaporations, but as we move farther out into the spectrum it requires more effort to find the corresponding relations. Even such forms as a star, and if we try to compare them to the forms of plants, it can be done but would take more effort since they are on farther portions of the spectrum. Basically, the more different they are, the harder it is to compare them, but they are comparable. For if we tried to rather compare plants to animals then it would be easier since they are on closer portions of the spectrum. A star is formed usually by gravitational collapse and receives from its environment by gravitational pull. A plant is formed, usually by receiving from the sun, water, and minerals in the soil. An animal is formed usually by receiving from the environment in the form of food. So we have: Star Food Star Growth Animal Food Animal Growth Plant Food Plant Growth Some things we know about plants are: They give forth fruit. Animals come and partake of it. The attraction it receives is dependent upon the amount of fruit they emit. There’s a force that keeps its form together, and other forces, such as the wind try to take it apart. Some things we know about animals are:

89

They give forth flesh to other animals that eat them. Other animals come and partake of it. The attraction it receives is dependent upon the amount of flesh they emit. There’s a force that keeps its form together, and other forces, such as other animals try to take it apart. Now with stars, the system should be the same, but slightly different according to their difference. But since, stars are more diverse than plants and animals, finding their corresponding relations could easily be done, but more effort is required than if it were things that are more alike. Some things we know about stars are: They emit light Planets revolve around them. They have a larger gravitational field than most planets that revolve around them There’s a force that keeps it together, and other forces that try to take it apart. In any case, and in the case of the kind-relations above, the greater the difference of any given kinds, the more effort is needed to find their corresponding relations. The greater the distance between relations the more work is needed to find their corresponding kinds. Similarly, the greater the distance between relations, the more work is needed to find their corresponding kinds. If we consider such distant things as our earth we know that it is related to its core. We also know it is related to its clouds in the atmosphere. Therefore, according to relations transitivity, the earth’s clouds are related to the earth’s core. Now we know that each of them belongs to their own spectrum of kinds. For example, we know that the core of the earth is kind to other types of core in other planets. Now since "if two or more things are relations, and one has an extra kind, then there exists corresponding kinds to the remaining relations," then we can conclude that as earth core is to other planets’ cores, so is earth clouds to other planets clouds. Now concerning the distance between the relations, we know that they are more diverse, thus, comparing the other planet’s cores to determine their kind of atmosphere to that of the core of the earth to its atmosphere would require more effort compared to attempting just to compare each of their temperatures to their distance from the sun, since those are more easily to see as related.

90

Corresponding relations of Kind-Relations are spectrums of kinds. When we deduce the corresponding relations of a given number of kinds, even Kind-Relations, they turn out to be a spectrum of kinds. Consider the following Kind-Relations: Fish is to Water As: Snake is to Ground As: Bird it to Air The fish, snake, and bird are kinds. The water, ground, and air, are the corresponding relations of those kinds. However, we can clearly see that they are also of their own spectrums of kinds.

Corresponding kinds of Relation-Kinds are forms of relations. Likewise, when we deduce the corresponding kinds of a given number of relations, even Relation-Kinds, they turn out to be their own form of relations. If we take related-kinds such as: Fish is to Snake is to Bird As Water is to Ground is to Air. The Fish and Water are relations. The snake and ground and bird and are the corresponding kinds. We can clearly see that they two are of their own form of relations.

91

Spectrums of kinds can be divided into Kind-Relations In order to divide spectrums of kinds in to Kind-Relations, it is important to know and understand the inner relations, or relations compositions. Each thing can be divided into relations, or is composed of relations; so also with the kinds within a spectrum. They can be divided into Kinds-Relations. If we consider a group of kinds such as Triangle, Square, and Circle. We can divide them in to Kind-Relations by determining their inner relations parts and corresponding inner parts. Kinds: Triangle Square Circle Divided into Kind-Relations Three Points Four Points Infinite Points

Three Sides Four Sides Infinite Sides

Three Angles Four Angles Infinite Angles

Forms of relations can be divided into Relation-Kinds In order to divide forms of relations into related-kinds, it is important to know and understand the inner kinds, or kinds compositions. As we know, each thing can be divided into kinds, or is composed of kinds; so also with the relations within a comparative unit. We can divide each of them into related-kinds. If we consider a group of relations such as: “The points of Shapes”, “The Sides of Shapes,” and “The Angles of Shapes,” we can divide them in to relatedkinds by determining their inner kinds parts and corresponding inner parts.

92

Relations: The Points of Shapes The Sides of Shapes The Angles of Shapes Divide into Related-Kinds: Three Points Four Points Infinite Points

Three Sides Four Sides Infinite Sides

Three Angles Four Angles Infinite Angles

Of any given comparative unit, the number of kinds of each of its RelationKinds is equal to the number of Kind-Relations. Observing the quantities of the comparative unit, allows us to see corresponding relationships of the kinds of Related-Kinds and Kind-Relations. Thus we have:

In the previous example we have two spectrums of kinds that are related to each other. Each spectrum is composed of five kinds. Therefore, we have the quantity of the kinds of each of the related-kinds.

In that example, we have five forms of relations that are kind to each other. We can also see that the quantity is five.

93

Thus concerning comparative units, the number of kinds of each of Related-Kinds is equal to the number of Kind-Relations. Of any given comparative unit, the number of relations of each of its KindRelations is equal to the number of Relation-Kinds. By observing the quantities of the comparative unit, we can see corresponding relationships of the relations of Kind-Relations and that of Related-Kinds. Thus have:

In the previous example, there are five forms of relations that are kind to each other. Each form has a quantity of two relations. Thus we have the quantity of relations of each Kind-Relation.

94

With this example, we have only two spectrums of kinds that are related to each other. Therefore, as we can see, the number of relations of each KindRelation is equal to the number of Related-Kinds. Comparative units can be related to other comparative units. Throughout the sections of this book, we’ve observed relations being organized horizontally and kinds organized vertically. Concerning relations, in the previous examples, we’ve explained how single relations can be related to each other. However, within comparative space, even comparative units themselves can be related to each other. Comparative units that are horizontal as relations are related to each other:

Comparative units can be kind to other comparative units. As different things can be kind to each other in Kinds Space, comparative units can also be kind each other. As long as comparative units are vertical each other, then they are as kinds in a spectrum. Therefore, we can say comparative units can also come in spectrums of kinds, as with regular kinds. The following illustration is an example how comparative units can be kind to other comparative units:

95

Comparative units can be comparative to other comparative units. As comparatives are organized in comparative space, comparative units themselves can be organized in comparative space. We’ve learned that Comparative Units can be related to each other. We’ve learned that they can be kind to each other. Comparative units can also be comparative each other. In the following example, we can see an example of comparativecomparative units: or comparative units that are comparative to each other.

Every word is a comparative unit. The word ‘soup’ is composed of kinds and relations; therefore, it must be composed of comparatives. In fact, not only is that word a comparative unit, but all words and all forms of description are a portion of Comparative Space. The word ‘the’ applies to a given number of relations of and kinds of 'the'. Therefore, the word ‘the’ is a description of a given portion of Comparative Space. The word ‘car’ applies to a given number of relations and number of different kinds of 'cars'. Therefore, the word ‘car’ is a description of a given portion of Comparative Space. The word ‘extension’ applies to a given number of relations and number of different kinds of 'extensions'. Therefore, the word ‘extension’ is a description of a given portion of Comparative Space. The word ‘description’ applies to a given number of relations and number of different kinds of 'descriptions'. Therefore, the word ‘description’ is a description of a given portion of Comparative Space.

96

The word ‘world’ applies to a given number of relations and number of different kinds of 'worlds'. Therefore, the word ‘world’ is a description of a given portion of Comparative Space. Every word, every description, or form of symbolization explain something is an expression of a mind. And each word, description, or symbolization is a Comparative Unit. All knowledge can be organized into a comparative unit. As was previously illustrated, distinct and divided comparative units can connect to each other. However, I suspect that this applies to all comparative units that are created and organized. Just as a group of molecules can become large and larger, creating more massive structures of organization, so I suspect that all knowledge that we humans currently possess can connect together perfectly into a much larger comparative unit. However, once this is done, as evolution proceeds, new kinds of things will be birthed and old kinds of things will diminish. We will have to keep updating the Universal Comparative Unit to maintain with the proceeds of evolution and change. New names and descriptions would have to apply to new things that are created each moment. Our current humanity knowledge only has but so many words, descriptions, and names. However, all this knowledge, and even knowledge of years to come, can be organized into one comparative unit. Although our perception is finite at any given time, the comparative unit can always grow and maintain the relationships of its' self. The descriptions of Kind-Relations have common Relations Integration description and an uncommon Relations Division description. The descriptions of Relation-Kinds have common Kinds Integration description and an uncommon Kinds Division description. One of the most important things we can know with Comparative Understanding is that we can group together things that are alike and give them a common description but also, at the same time, divide each of their relations apart to give uncommon descriptions to create or determine Relation–Kinds. When we think of the word ‘story’, we mean a great number of different things or different kind of stories. Each of those stories is different, but with Kinds Integration we group them together and give them a common description. However, in order to create Relation–Kinds, or to compare them, we have to see differences within them at the same time as well. We know they are all stories, but in order to divide them into comparative space, we need to find the related differences. So how do we do so? We know there are many kinds of stories: there are dramatic stories, there

97

are action stories, there are science fiction stories, there are fantasy stories, and there are scary stories, and so on. Now if you look carefully at what was just done, I’ve not only group them together, but I’ve divide them apart as well. When we do this, at the same time, we are able to create Relation-Kinds. We know that every story has a corresponding writer. So the story writer is related to the story itself. Story writer and Story teller are relations. Now to create Relation-Kinds, we have to group them together, by giving them a common description, and at the same time, divide them apart. By giving two or more things a common relation description such as Story Teller and Story Writer, in that case the common relation description is Story, and the uncommon relations description is Teller and Writer. Teller and Writer are relations and we simplify that by giving them a common togetherness relations description, which is story. On the other end, by dividing the story concept into its kinds: science fiction, fantasy, scary, dramatic, we normally give its common kind description to the left: Science Fiction Story Fantasy Story Scary Story Dramatic Story Thus by giving them a common kind description we notify that we’ve mentally grouped them together into kinds. Now if we combine the two we get: Science Fiction Story Science Fiction Story Writer Fantasy Story Fantasy Story Writer Scary Story Scary Story Writer Dramatic Story Dramatic Story Writer Or we can group them into a comparative Unit as follows: Science Fiction Story Fantasy Story Scary Story Dramatic Story

Science Fiction Story Writer Fantasy Story Writer Scary Story Writer Dramatic Story Writer

So as we can see, we created Relation-Kinds by giving their different kinds a common kinds description to group them together and a uncommon

98

kinds description to divide them apart., and their relations a common relations description to group them together and an uncommon relations description to divide them apart. Another way to look at created comparative description is to know that there are really only 4 ways our minds can see things: by Kinds Integration and Kinds Division, and by Relations Integration and Relations Division. And thus only 4 descriptions: Kinds Integration description, Kinds Division description, Relations Integration description, and Relations Division description.

Expanding Principles, Laws, and Formations The Selection Concept One of the principles of Physics is that with the states of matter their varying colors are a result of their varying reflection and absorption of the various wavelengths of light. For example, a red material appears to be 'red' because it absorbs all the frequencies of light except that color. A yellow material, such as a banana, is yellow because it absorbs all of the frequencies of light except yellow. So now, based on one of the principles that "everything belongs to an infinite spectrum of kinds," that concept should appear in other realms of knowledge just like a plant form appears to be a tree form but slightly different. What are some examples of the same concept of physics appearing in other realms of knowledge? Objects absorb certain colors of light and reflect certain others Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light

People absorb certain events in their life and reflect certain others Mass Light Selection Wavelengths of Light People Event Selection Types of Events

99

Our ears are only sensitive to certain frequencies of sound and it reflects the frequency of its ability Mass People Ears

Light Selection Event Selection Sound Selection

Wavelengths of Light Types of Events Wavelengths of Sound

Our eyes are only sensitive to certain frequencies of light and it reflects the frequency of its ability Mass People Ears Eye

Light Selection Event Selection Sound Selection Light Selection

Wavelengths of Light Types of Events Wavelengths of Sound Wavelengths of Light

When people go to a grocery story, the select only the things they need and repel the rest Mass People Ears Eye People

Light Selection Event Selection Sound Selection Light Selection Food Selection

Wavelengths of Light Types of Events Wavelengths of Sound Wavelengths of Light Kinds of Food

An entire person’s life is selective in the choices he or she can make Mass People Ears Eye People Decisions

Light Selection Event Selection Sound Selection Light Selection Food Selection Choice Selection

Wavelengths of Light Types of Events Wavelengths of Sound Wavelengths of Light Kinds of Food Kinds of Choices

100

As is apparent, the selection concept of physics can be expanded to other realms of knowledge. By finding more relations for any one of them, corresponding relations of the remaining can be discovered. Also, just as the colors of the spectrum, there are an infinite realms of knowledge in which this selection concept appears. Finding the limit within our human perception could be done just by building simple comparative units. Expanding Physics Laws One of the most beneficial things of building comparative units is the ability for them to show the corresponding relations or kinds of relations or kinds. By building comparative units, we can mentally integrate and conclude automatically that has not been before. If we take the concept of gravity, we know based on one of the comparative principles that it belongs to an infinite form of relations, so what are some of the relations associated with gravity? Gravity acts at a distance by gravitational fields: Gravity is dependent upon the masses of objects by gravity charge: Gravity Gravity Charge Gravity Field

We can go on for long periods of time to determine all the outer and inner relations associated with gravity. Previously, I’ve pointed out 2 of the main ones. Now according to the principle, “If two or more things are kinds, and one has an extra relation, then there exist corresponding relations to the remaining kinds,” then the same thing must apply to all the other known forces in the universe, but differently according to their relative difference. They must have their own fields and charges: Within the finite portion of the spectrum, we know of three main other forces: electromagnetic, weak, and strong force. Now we can find the corresponding relations of each in relation to the relations of that of gravity: What things are involved with the electromagnetic force as the things we’ve associated with the gravity force? What things are involved with the weak force as the things we’ve associated with the gravity force? What things are involved with the strong force as the things we’ve associated with the gravity force? Gravity

Gravity Charge

Gravity Field 101

Electromagnetic Electric Charge Electric Field Weak Weak Charge Weak Field Strong Strong Charge Strong Field Thus since, the electromagnetic, weak, and strong force are kind to gravity, then we can conclude that there is a sort of force charge and field for each one, but different according to their relative difference. Even more relations can be added to the comparative unit. For example, we know there are a lot more relations about the electromagnetic force. We know of a phenomenon call electromagnetic induction. This is a process that involves the separation of electric charges of specific objects when moved through a magnetic field. By this principle, discovered by Michael Faraday, it made possible the production of electricity. Now what have we learned? We’ve learned that difference is related to difference. We learned that if things are kinds, and one has relations to it, then so also do the remaining kinds. Therefore, since electromagnetism has a thing called 'electricity' that involves the motion of electrons, then we can conclude that there exists a 'gravitricity'; that there exists a way to generate means of energy into weak ‘electricity’; and strong ‘electricity’, and if other forces are discovered, then to them as well. Finding such corresponding relations and building such devices and inventions for the converting of energy into the new types of electricity would be simple by just finding and inferring the corresponding relations. Gravity

Gravity Charge

Gravity Field

Electromagnetic Weak

Electric Charge Weak Charge

Electric Field Weak Field

Strong

Strong Charge

Strong Field

Gravity Charge Electric Charge Weak Charge Strong Charge

Gravity Field Gravitricity Electric Field Electricity Weak Field Weaktricity Strong Field Strongtricity

Electricity

Thus: Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong

Furthermore, what about such things as light? We know that light is an electromagnetic wave. Therefore, once again placing it within the comparative Unit: Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong

Electromagnetic Wave

102

Thus, the principle states that there exists a form of energy to the gravity, weak, and the strong force, as our currently knowledge of light is to the electromagnetic force. It states, that there is a sort of 'gravity light', that there is a sort of 'weak light', and a 'strong light'. Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong

Gravitational Wave Electromagnetic Wave Weak Wave Strong Wave

Now since gravity is known to be the most diverse or weak force, and that it involves much greater distances than that of the other forces, I suspect that the gravitational wave, or light, would also be of great divergence to the other waves. We also know that there is medium in which our current light, or electromagnetic energy, travels in which we call 'space'. Thus, we can place them as relations to the electromagnetic wave: Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong

Gravitational Wave Electromagnetic Wave Weak Wave Strong Wave

Medium for Electromagnetic Wave

Thus: Gravity Electromagnetic Weak Strong

Gravitational Wave Electromagnetic Wave Weak Wave Strong Wave

Medium for Gravitation Wave Medium for Electromagnetic Wave Medium for Weak Wave Medium for Strong Wave

Thus, in this example, we can see that just as our current light has its medium of space, so also of that of the other forces. And once again, since the forces are diverse, so also will be their mediums for which their kinds of waves travel. We know that the speed of light is constant in relation to mass, space, and time. Thus, we can conclude that similar things can result for the other kinds of light. Even such equations as E=MC^2, which involves the velocity of electromagnetic radiation as a constant, I suspect that such similar equations can be created with the other kinds of light in relation to their forces and quantities. Such things as finding corresponding relations can be done with all things known and to all realms of physics in which we are able to expand all its principles, to all realms of biology, to all realms of neuroscience, engineering, inventions, and beyond. And in doing so, we are able to make new mental connections of things not once known before. 103

Connecting Comparative Units We can even connect comparative units, when we see two or more shares relations or kinds. In the case of the previous examples, we can see how the comparative unit with the senses and the comparative unit with the force related to one another.

As gravitation forces of particles, we can unite the comparative unit together into a much larger comparative unit.

Thus, I suspect once we begin to have large portions of our knowledge within comparative space, we will come to find that all the comparative units will begin to connect together perfectly like pieces of a puzzle. The Circulation Concept Moons revolve around planets. Planets revolve around the sun. The wind goes around continually throughout the face of the earth. The water goes around continually throughout the earth. Plants rise and fall continually through time. Our blood vessels carry blood in a circuit through our heart. Now we can organize them into a comparative unit: Moons

Revolve

Planets 104

Planets Wind Water Plants Blood

Revolve Circulate Circulate Rise and Fall Circulate

Sun Earth Earth Time Heart

Now, as we can clearly see, those are kinds. There are infinitely many more kinds we can compare with them, but we’ll just use the six for now. Now, one of the fundamental principles is that difference relates to difference. Therefore, as we can see, moons are different from planets, wind, water, plant growth, and blood. Therefore they must relate to something different. Moons relate to planets by revolving around them. Planets are different from the rest, therefore we can conclude therefore we can conclude that they are related to something proportionally different. The Storage Concept We know that such things as 'storing foods into our cabinets' is a concept in which we can expand. Here are other realms of knowledge in which the ‘storage’ concept appears: Storing Food in a Refrigerator Storing Money in a Safe Storing Memory in a Computer Chip Storing Words on Paper Storing Water in Cup Storing Clothes in drawer Storing Songs on Music Disk Storing Information on Computer Disk Storing Memories in Brain Now we can organize it into a comparative unit and common descriptions: Refrigerator Storing Safe Storing Computer Storing Paper Storing Cup Storing Drawer Storing Music Disk Storing Computer Disk Storing Brian Storing

Refrigerator Food Safe Food Computer Food Paper Food Cup Food Drawer Food Music Food Computer Food Brain Food

105

Now as we can see, this is a group of kinds. We’ve given them all together a common kinds and relations description calling it ‘the storage concept’. By giving them all a common description to the left it increases our kinds integration of each of its relations. We can also expand groups of relations by finding other things related to it. Let's consider the brain. What other things, or relations, do we know about the brain? Let’s see: We know that the brain stores memories, so we can add 'brain memory' to the relations. We know that the brain also requires perception in order to store those memories. Thus, we can add to the form of relations 'brain perception'. And even more can be added to 'brain perception' and 'brain memory', in which will also corresponding to their other remaining kinds, but differently according to their relative difference. The Evaporation Concept Water evaporates into the sky, and the rains falls down continually. This is the evaporation concept. What would be an example of this concept appearing in other realms of knowledge? Gases Evaporate in to other forms at certain temperatures Liquids Evaporates in to another form a certain temperatures. Solids Evaporate into other forms at certain temperatures. Therefore, Plasma Evaporate into other forms at certain temperatures. Gases normally turn into lesser dense states of matter. Liquid normally turn into lesser dense states of matter. Solids normal turn into less dense states of matter. Therefore, plasma evaporates into lesser dense states of matter at certain temperatures. Kinds Gases Liquids Solids Plasma

106

Adding Relations with Kinds Common Description

Gases Liquids Solids Plasma

Evaporate Evaporate Evaporate Evaporate

At Certain Temperatures At Certain Temperatures At Certain Temperatures At Certain Temperatures

Kinds Relations –Description Comparative Unit

Gas Liquids Solids Plasma

Gas Evaporation Liquid Evaporation Solid Evaporation Plasma Evaporation

Gas Evaporation Temperature Liquid Evaporation Temperature Solid Evaporation Temperature Plasma Evaporation Temperature

The Evaporation Concept is also part of the Evolution Concept Gases change in relation to its environment temperature. Liquids change in relation to its environment temperature. Solids change in relation to its environment temperature. Plasma changes in relation to its environment temperature. Animals' bodies change in relation to their environmental circumstances. The Evaporation Concept is a Part of the Gravity Concept just on distant parts of a much larger spectrum. When a unit of matter with a specific amount of mass is taken to another planet with different mass, the gravitational attraction between the mass and that planet changes. Thus, just like the evolution concept, and the evaporation concept, it changes to its environment. We can see that just like distinct plants on earth, so also are concepts. They may appear to be different, but concepts can be expanded to other realms of knowledge. The Conversion Concept A common description that applies to a large portion of the spectrum of knowledge would be The Conversion Concept. We know that energy converts from one form to another: When we push a bowling ball, we convert energy from us into the form of the motion of the ball. When we sleep we convert energy of the mind to other forms and dimensions.

107

When we read books, we convert the energy of knowledge into our mind as understanding. When we jump we convert the energy of our leg muscles into the form of rising in the air. When we attempt to think, energy from our energy bank is converted into the form of thought. When we go to buy things at our local grocery story, we convert the energy of our money into the form of goods. The Quantity Concept Another concept that applies to large portions of difference is the quantity concept. Almost all things can be thought of as quantity: energy, time, space, motion, etc. If we were to think of all things in the Universe is just a plane invisible black quantity of things. We can clearly see that it applies to larger portions of difference than most descriptions. Space Quantity Time Quantity Motion Quantity Force Quantity Mass Quantity Intention Quantity With such large Kinds Common Descriptions, such as ‘quantity’, we can not only see how things are kind, but also, that on much larger scales, the kinds can become related. I suspect that just as there are such equations to unite mass to force and so forth, so also there are equations to unit space, time, mass, motion, force, and so on.

Building Comparative Units Now with building comparative units, we can start off with anything known, or anything that can be explained or describe using words, numbers, or any other form of symbolization. In the case of this comparative unit we are going to build, we will work with the color ‘red’. We’ll then compute it within comparative space as follows: Red

108

Now what things are kind to red? Within the comparative unit, we know that kinds are vertical each other. We can place the color orange, most kind to it, to begin creating a spectrum. Red Orange

We continue the process: what is kind to orange? Red Orange Yellow

What things are kind to yellow? And so on… Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

109

One of the principle states that not only does everything that can be known belong to an infinite spectrum of kinds, but also an infinite form of relations. So what things are related to any one of the kinds? What is something we know that is related, or associated with the color red? We know apples are red, so we can compute them within the comparative space: Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple

Moving on, what is kind to apple, and at the same time, related to orange? We know that the orange fruit fits within the comparative unit where it is related to the color orange and of the same kind or spectrum of kinds as that of the apple. Red is to Apple as Orange is to Orange or Orange is to Red as Orange is to Apple. Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange

Now what is kind to orange and also related to the color yellow? We know that apples are related to the color red. We know that oranges are related to the color orange. We know that the color yellow is related to lemons. Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon

110

Thus we can compute the remaining corresponding relations. Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

However, since we can only perceive a finite portion of kinds and relations space, at any given time, we can always add to the comparative unit its relations and kinds. Just as there are things that are related to the color red, what are some things that are related to the fruit 'apple'? Apples are related to apple trees. Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree

Apple Trees are related to their own kind of seeds. Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree

Apple Tree Seeds

Apple tree seeds are related to their own type of ground needed best for them to grow. Red Orange Yellow

Apple Orange Lemon

Apple Tree

Apple Tree Seeds

111

Apple Tree Seed Ground

Green Blue Purple

Lime Berries Grapes

Now since comparative units can always be completed. We can fill in the comparative unit with the corresponding relations and kinds. What is to orange as apple tree is to apple? Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree Orange Tree

Apple Tree Seeds

Apple Tree Seed Ground

What is to Orange tree as apple tree seeds are to apple trees? Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree Orange Tree

Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground Orange Tree Seeds

What is to Orange Tree Seeds as Apple tree seed grounds is to apple tree seeds? Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree Orange Tree

Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground Orange Tree Seeds Orange Tree Seed Ground

What are the remaining kinds of the tree spectrum that are corresponding relations of the remaining kinds of the fruit spectrum?

112

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree Orange Tree Lemon Tree Lime Tree Berry Tree Grape Tree

Apple Tree Seeds Apple Tree Seed Ground Orange Tree Seeds Orange Tree Seed Ground

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Purple

Apple Orange Lemon Lime Berries Grapes

Apple Tree Orange Tree Lemon Tree Lime Tree Berry Tree Grape Tree

Apple Tree Seeds Orange Tree Seeds Lemon Tree Seeds Lime Tree Seeds Berry Tree Seeds Grape Tree Seeds

113

Apple Tree Seed Ground Orange Tree Seed Ground Lemon Tree Seed Ground Lime Tree Seed Ground Berry Tree Seed Ground Grape Tree Seed Ground

For systems of the human body, we can start off with the kinds of receiving our body undergoes:

With the previous comparative unit, we started off with the kinds of receiving: We receive by eating, perception, absorbing, and grabbing. Eating food allows us to receive by eating. Observing events allows us to receive by perception. Inhaling air allows us to receive by breathing. Picking up objects allows us to receive by grabbing.

114

The law states, that if two or more things are kind, and one has an extra relation(s) then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds. Therefore, if we know that the food digestive system has various organs and parts undergoing the process, we can automatically conclude that there is a system but a different kind of system that undergoes fairly the same thing: We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after observing events with our perception. We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after inhaling air with our breathing We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after we pick up objects with our grabbing. We can conclude that there’s a kind of digestive system after we perceive events with our perception More Comparative Units We can start off with anything known: Ghosts

Now what spectrum of kinds does ‘ghosts’ belong to? It belongs to the spectrum such as mysterious things, thus we can add some of things that are kind to it – that are also mysterious things: Ghosts Fairies Angles Aliens What things do we know of that are related to ghosts? We know that people have ghost experiences:

115

Ghosts Fairies Angles Aliens

Ghost Experiences

What are some things we know that are related to ‘ghost experiences’? We know that people take ghosts pictures: Ghosts Fairies Angles Aliens

Ghost Experiences

Ghost Pictures

What are some things related to ‘ghost pictures’? We know that there must be ghost worlds: And we can go on and on to find all the relations related to ghost and organize them within the comparative unit: Ghosts Ghost Experiences

Ghost Pictures Ghost World

Fairies Angles Aliens Now since comparative units can always be completed, and since if two or more things are kind and one has extra relation(s) then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds, thus, we can conclude that there are fairy experiences; that there are angel experiences; and that there are alien experiences. We can conclude that there must be some form of fairy pictures; some form of angle pictures; and some form of alien pictures. We can also conclude that there must be some form of fairy world; angel world; and alien worlds. With this comparative unit, by just simply keeping the left descriptions of the vertical units common and keeping the right descriptions of horizontal units common, we can create descriptions of the corresponding relations of the comparative unit: Ghosts Fairies

Ghost Experiences Fairy Experiences

Ghost Pictures Fairy Pictures

Ghost World Fairy World

Angles

Angels Experiences

Angle Pictures

Angel World

Aliens

Alien Experiences

Alien Pictures

Alien World

116

However, since we only perceive a finite portion of comparative space, there are many more mysterious creatures, experiences, and worlds; nonetheless, we perceive only a finite portion at any given time. We can also give each form of relations a common togetherness description: Ghosts Relations Fairies Relations Angel Relations Aliens Relations And we can divide them apart into some of their relations: Ghosts Fairies Angles Aliens

Ghost Experiences Fairy Experiences Angels Experiences Alien Experiences

Ghost Pictures Fairy Pictures Angle Pictures Alien Pictures

Ghost World Fairy World Angel World Alien World

We can also group each spectrum with a common description Mysterious Beings

Mysterious Experiences

Mysterious Pictures

Mysterious Worlds

And as with relations we can divide each relation into some of there kinds: Ghosts

Ghost Experiences

Ghost Pictures

Ghost World

Fairies

Fairy Experiences

Fairy Pictures

Fairy World

Angles

Angels Experiences

Angle Pictures

Angel World

Aliens

Alien Experiences

Alien Pictures

Alien World

More comparative units: Step 1: Earthquakes

Step 2:

117

Earthquakes Volcanoes

Step 3: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes

Step 4: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes Step 5: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes

Earthquake Places

Step 6 and 7: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes

Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption

Earthquake Cause

Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Volcanoes Places Hurricane Places Tornado Places

Earthquake Cause

Step 10: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes Step 11:

118

Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes

Earthquake Places Earthquake Eruption Volcanoes Places Volcano Eruptions Hurricane Places Tornado Places

Earthquake Cause

Step 12 and 13: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes

Earthquake Places Volcanoes Places Hurricane Places Tornado Places

Earthquake Eruption Volcano Eruptions Hurricane Eruptions Tornado Eruptions

Earthquake Cause

Earthquake Places Volcanoes Places Hurricane Places Tornado Places

Earthquake Eruption Volcano Eruptions Hurricane Eruptions Tornado Eruptions

Earthquake Cause Volcano Cause Hurricane Cause Tornado Cause

Step 16: Earthquakes Volcanoes Hurricanes Tornadoes Step 1: Telephone

Step 4: Telephone Radio Television Internet Step 6: Telephone Radio Television Internet

Television Shows

Television Inventor

Step 7: 119

Telephone Radio Television Internet

Television Shows

Radio Inventor Television Inventor

Step 9: Telephone Radio Television Internet

Television Shows

Telephone Inventor Radio Inventor Television Inventor Internet Inventors

Step 10: Telephone Radio Television Internet

Television Shows

Telephone Inventor Radio Inventor Television Inventor Internet Inventors

Radio Sizes

Step 13: Telephone Radio Television Internet

Television Shows

Telephone Inventor Radio Inventor Television Inventor Internet Inventors

Telephone Sizes Radio Sizes Television Sizes Internet Sizes

Telephone Inventor Radio Inventor Television Inventor Internet Inventors

Telephone Sizes Radio Sizes Television Sizes Internet Sizes

Step 16: Telephone Radio Television Internet

Telephone Shows Radio Shows Television Shows Internet Shows

120

Step 1: Boat

Step 4: Boat Car Airplane Rocket

Step 7: Boat Car Airplane Rocket

Water

Fish

Swimming

Boat Car Airplane

Water Ground Air

Fish Deer Birds

Swimming Running Flying

Rocket

Space

Asteroids

Floating

Step 16:

Step 1: Fire Fighter

121

Step 5: Fire Fighter Detective Police Officer Doctor Lawyer Step 7: Fire Fighter Detective Police Officer Doctor Lawyer

Lawyer Tools

Lawyer Offices

Step 15: Fire Fighter Detective Police Officer Doctor Lawyer

Fire Fighter Tools Detective Tools Police Tools Doctor Tools Lawyer Tools

Fire Fighter Offices Detective Offices Police Offices Doctor Offices Lawyer Offices

Step 17:

122

Step 21:

Step 1: Ants

123

Step 4: Ants Spiders Crickets Roaches

Step 5: Ants Spiders Crickets

Cricket Legs

Roaches

Step 10: Ants Spiders Crickets Roaches

Ant Legs Spider Legs Cricket Legs Roach Legs

Cricket Constructions

Step 15: Ants

Ant Legs

Ant Constructions

Spiders

Spider Legs

Spider Constructions

Crickets

Cricket Legs

Cricket Constructions

Roaches

Roach Legs

Roach Constructions

124

Step 1: K

Step 8: K L M N O P Q R

125

Step 10: K L M N O P Q R

Eleventh Letter of Alphabet

Kite

Eleventh Letter of Alphabet Twelfth Letter of Alphabet Thirteenth Letter of Alphabet Fourteenth Letter of Alphabet Fifteenth Letter of Alphabet Sixteenth Letter of Alphabet Seventeenth Letter of Alphabet Eighteenth Letter of Alphabet

Kite

Eleventh Letter of Alphabet Twelfth Letter of Alphabet Thirteenth Letter of Alphabet Fourteenth Letter of Alphabet Fifteenth Letter of Alphabet Sixteenth Letter of Alphabet Seventeenth Letter of Alphabet Eighteenth Letter of Alphabet

Kite Load More Note Open Paint Quite Road

Step 17: K L M N O P Q R Step 24: K L M N O P Q R

Step 1: Triangle

126

Step 7: Triangle Square Pentagon Hexagon Heptagon Octagon Nonagon Step 10: Triangle Square Pentagon Hexagon Heptagon Octagon Nonagon

3 Sides

Triangle Equations

Triangle Forms

3 Sides 4 Sides 5 Sides 6 Sides 7 Sides 8 Sides 9 Sides

Triangle Equations Square Equations Pentagon Equations Hexagon Equations Heptagon Equations Octagon Equations Nonagon Equations

Triangles Forms Squares Forms Pentagon Forms Hexagon Forms Heptagon Forms Octagon Forms Nonagon Forms

Step 21: Triangle Square Pentagon Hexagon Heptagon Octagon Nonagon

127

Step 1: Shorts Makers

Step 4: Shorts Makers Pants Makers Belt Makers Shirt Makers Step 7: Shorts Makers Pants Makers Belt Makers Shirt Makers

Shorts Brands

Shorts Stores

Step 12:

128

Shorts Makers Pants Makers Belt Makers Shirt Makers

Shorts Brands Pants Brands Belt Brands Shirt Brands

Shorts Stores Pant Stores Belt Stores Shirt Stores

Placing Comparative Unit within Comparative Unit

Step 1: Imagination

129

Step 8: Imagination Emotions Intentions Awareness Reason Belief Hope Faith Step 11: Imagination Emotions Intentions Awareness Reason Belief Hope Faith

The World of Imagination

The Purpose of Imagination

Imagination Energy

The World of The World of The World of The World of The World of The World of The World of The World of

The Purpose of Imagination The Purpose of Emotions The Purpose of Intentions The Purpose of Awareness The Purpose of Reasoning The Purpose of Believing The Purpose of Hoping The Purpose of Faith

Imagination Energy Emotion Energy Intention Energy Awareness Energy Reason Energy Belief Energy Hope Energy Faith Energy

Step 32: Imagination Emotions Intentions Awareness Reason Belief Hope Faith

Imagination Emotions Intentions Awareness Reasoning Believing Hoping Faith

130

Step 1: Hand Bones

Step 5: Hand Bones Arm Bones Leg Bones Feet Bones Back Bones Step 6: Hand Bones Arm Bones Leg Bones Feet Bones Back Bones

Hand Muscles

Step 10: Hand Bones Arm Bones Leg Bones Feet Bones Back Bones

Hand Muscles Arm Muscles Leg Muscles Feet Muscles Back Muscles

Step 1: Hand Skin

Step 5:

131

Hand Skin Arm Skin Leg Skin Feet Skin Back Skin Step 6: Hand Skin Arm Skin Leg Skin Feet Skin Back Skin

Hand Function

Step 10: Hand Skin Arm Skin Leg Skin Feet Skin Back Skin

Hand Function Arm Function Leg Function Feet Function Back Function

Common Relations Descriptions:

Step 1: Shoulder Bones

Step 5: Shoulder Bones 132

Rib Bones Heel Bones Head Bones Face Bones Step 6: Shoulder Bones Shoulder Muscles Rib Bones Heel Bones Head Bones Face Bones Step 10: Shoulder Bones Rib Bones Heel Bones Head Bones Face Bones

Shoulder Muscles Rib Muscles Heel Muscles Head Muscles Face Muscles

Comparative Unit with Common Kinds Description:

Step 1: Shoulder Skin

133

Step 5: Shoulder Skin Rib Skin Heel Skin Head Skin Face Skin Step 6: Shoulder Skin Rib Skin Heel Skin Head Skin Face Skin

Shoulder Function

Step 10: Shoulder Skin Rib Skin Heel Skin Head Skin Face Skin

Shoulder Function Rib Function Heel Function Head Function Face Function

134

Comparative-Comparative Units: Comparative Units with Common Relations and Kinds Description

Hand Bones Arm Bones Leg Bones Feet Bones Back Bones Shoulder Bones Rib Bones Heel Bones Head Bones Face Bones

Hand Muscles Arm Muscles Leg Muscles Feet Muscles Back Muscles Shoulder Muscles Rib Muscles Heel Muscles Head Muscles Face Muscles

Hand Skin Arm Skin Leg Skin Feet Skin Back Skin Shoulder Skin Rib Skin Heel Skin Head Skin Face Skin

Hand Function Arm Function Leg Function Feet Function Back Function Shoulder Function Rib Function Heel Function Head Function Face Function

As we can see, everything that can be known or understood has its place within comparative space. Experiments can be done with all realms of understanding and even new knowledge that is to evolve years to come. Also, as we can see, by building comparative units we can comparative things we never could compare before without them. By building comparative units, comparative knowledge is in one of its simplest forms.

135

The Warping of the Dimensions Kinds are Relations. Relations are Kinds. Up until now, I have described kinds and relations as being separate entities. Nevertheless, in this section I want to point out and make it clear that kinds within Kinds Space are also relations and those relations within Relations Space are also kinds. For example, we have many kinds of systems of the human body. All these systems are distinct, or different, and they all are similar. They all belong to Kinds Space: Kinds of the Human Body: Skeletal System Muscular System Cardiovascular System Nervous System Immune System Endocrine System Skin System Respiratory System Urinary System Digestive System However, the important thing to understand is that they all are also relations. They all also work together. Those kinds are also relations. Relations of the Human Body: Human Skeletal System Human Muscular System Human Cardiovascular System Human Nervous System Human Immune System Human Endocrine System Human Skin System Human Respiratory System Human Urinary System Human Digestive System So as we can see, even though things are kinds does not mean they are not relations. For all things are kinds and relations. Likewise, even though

136

things are relations does not mean they are not kinds. For all things are relations and kinds. The way the human body is structured, where there are different and similar things, but also those different and similar things work together is not different than the Universe itself. Two cows on earth may be very similar, and they may be on different sides of the globe, but they are still relations; they still are part of the earth form. They still are part of the relations system. Likewise, relations such as water and fish, may appear to not be kinds, but they are. They are both distinct things in which we can give a Kinds Common Description 'energy'. Kinds Space is a part of Relations Space, and Relations Space is a part of Kinds Space. Even though Kinds space is the knowledge of differences and similarities, all differences and similarities in the Universe are relations, no matter how distinct or alike they are. Likewise, even though Relations Space is the knowledge of interconnections and separations, those interconnections and separations are distinct and similar; therefore, they also belong to Kinds Space. Kinds can be physically mixed into Relations creating more complex structures. It is apparent that universally kinds are relations. However, many times kinds are so far apart that to understand them as relations requires an individual to have a much larger perspective of the whole. This individual may see that the kinds are relations, but their relations relationship measurement could very slim because they are very far apart. This is where the will of the human being comes into play. We are able to physically make kinds more related by mixing them closer together in space-time. We are able to mix kinds into relations to create more complex structures, and to make them denser relative to how they were when they were farther apart. This applies to all kinds that our minds are capable of knowing, if indeed the kinds are not already dense enough for our mind to comprehend them as relations. The generation of new ideas can be achieved by knowing the four fundamental rules of comparative space. Additionally, by knowing the law of mixing of kinds new structures can also be generated in to the higher levels of comparative space. For example, if we consider the various types of shapes, in the following illustration, the kinds (or any form of kinds) can be mixed together to create greater forms of complexity:

137

Other examples include: Consider all of the kinds of colors our human eye is capable of perceiving, we get the following: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, and Purple Since we are aware of them all as kinds, they can also be combined into more complex structures as relations. We can have a color mix with the following: Red and Orange = A color that is a combination of Red and Orange Yellow and Green = A color that is a combination of Yellow and Green Blue and Purple = A color that is a combination of Blue and Purple Likewise, we can even mix all of the colors and create a 'new' color composed of the many kinds of colors. Other kinds in which we can mix are kinds of electrical appliances: Television, Computer, Refrigerator, Microwave, Radio, Telephone

138

Television and Computer = an appliance that is combination of a Television and a Computer Refrigerator and Microwave = an appliance that is a combination of a Refrigerator and Microwave Radio and Telephone = an appliance that is a combination of a Radio and Telephone Likewise, we can even mix all of those appliances and create a new appliance composed of the many kinds of appliances. Other kinds in which we can mix are kinds of transportation: Cars, Airplanes, Submarines, Rockets Cars and Airplane = A transportation that is a combination of a car and an airplane Submarine and Rocket = a transportation that is a combination of a submarine and a rocket. Likewise, all four of them can be mixed together to create a kind of transportation that is a combination of a car, airplane, submarine, and rocket. Other kinds in which we can mix are kinds of earth life: Birds, Fish, Plants, Humans Birds and Fish = A life form that is a combination of a bird and a fish. Plants and Human = a life form that is a combination of a plant and an animal. Likewise, all four of them can be mixed together to create a kind of life form that is a combination of a bird, fish, plant, and human. As we can see, by combining the kinds within kinds space not only mentally, but physically, we can create more complex structures as if they were relations. Our minds have the ability to understand how one thing is a combination of two or more distinct kinds. In the previous contents of this book, the normal Kinds Integration and Division refers to the simple process of perceiving two or more things as alike or distinct. On the other hand, the Kinds-as-Relations Awareness involves another ability of our mind to comprehend how one thing is a combination, or mixture, of

139

two or more distinct kinds. For example, if we consider the various types of shapes, in the following illustration, if kinds (or any form of kinds) are mixed together we are capable of perceiving the form as a combination of two or more distinct kinds.

Other examples include: If we were to pour apple juice and orange juice into a cup, stir and mix them together, and if we give this cup to an individual to drink, this individual would be able to tell it is a mixture of those specific types of juice. Furthermore, if we add another juice, for example, grape juice, this individual would also be able to perceive it is a mixture of the three juices. If we were to press two distinct notes on an instrument simultaneously, an individual who is trained in the various types of musical notes will be able to tell it is a mixture of those specific types of musical notes. Furthermore, if we add another note, this individual would also be able to perceive it is a mixture of the three notes. If two famous authors were to collaborate on a story, an individual who knows the qualities and characteristics of the authors' stories would be able to tell that the story is also a combination of the two authors'. Furthermore, if we add another author, this individual would also be able to perceive it is a mixture of the three authors. If two parents produce an offspring, an individual who is aware of the qualities of the two parents would perceive the child as a combination of

140

the two parents. Furthermore, if this person knew more distant relatives of this child, the person would also be able to tell any other relatives the child is a mixture of. When kinds are physically combined, we also give new or combine their descriptions. In the previous examples, we use the kinds of shapes, colors, transportation, appliances, and earth life. We have showed how they can be physically mixed to create more complex structures of comparative space. What will happen to their description when we mix kinds? In the illustration of the shapes we have the following:

Other examples include: If we were to combine the color red and orange, then our minds are able to see those distinct colors mixed together, and so we can call the color 'Red-Orange' or 'Orange-Red'

141

If we were to combine the color blue and purple, then our minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can call the color 'Blue-Purple' or 'Purple Blue'. If we were to combine the appliances Television and Computer, then our minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Television Computer', or a 'Computer Television'. If we were to combine the appliances Refrigerator and Microwave, then our minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Refrigerator Microwave' or a 'Microwave Refrigerator' If we were to combine the transportations Car and Airplane, then our minds are able to see those distinct things mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Car Airplane' or an 'Airplane Car'. If we were to combine the transportations Submarine and Rocket, then our minds are able to see those distinct things as mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Submarine Rocket' or a 'Rocket Submarine' If we were to combine the life forms Bird and Fish, then our minds are able to see those distinct things as mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Bird Fish' or a 'Fish Bird'. If we were to combine the life forms Human and Plant, then our minds are able to see those distinct things as mixed together, and so we can call it a 'Human Plant' or a 'Plant Human'. Not all the times do we only give them two word descriptions, but many times we combine the two words together to create one word. For example, instead, of 'Red Orange' we would say 'Rorange'; or instead of 'Refrigerator Microwave' we would say, 'Refrigerwave'. Also, in many cases, we give them a completely new word separate from the two. In either case, our minds are capable of mixing corresponding descriptions of kinds that are physically mixed into relations. Relations can be physically separated into Kinds creating less complex structures. It is apparent that universally relations are kinds. However, many times relations are so close together that to understand them as kinds require an individual to have a more detailed perspective of the whole. This individual may see that the relations are kinds, but their kinds relationship measurement could be very slim. This is where the will of the human being comes into play. We are able to physically turn relations into kinds by separating them farther apart in

142

space-time. We are able to separate relations into kinds to create less complex structures, and to make them less dense relative to how they were when they were closer together. This applies to all relations that our minds are capable of knowing, if indeed the relations are not already less dense enough for our mind to comprehend them as kinds. The generation of new understanding can be achieved by knowing the four fundamental rules of comparative space. Additionally, by knowing the law of separating of relations into kinds new understanding of the parts can be achieved. If we take, for example, a car - all its parts are relations. Even thou we can mentally divided them apart and mentally see how they are connected; we can physically divide them apart and perceive them as kinds. The separated parts of a car can be turned into kinds: Car Relations (physically connected): Engine, Tire, Window, Driver, Street Car Relations into Kinds (physically separated): Engine Tire Window Driver Street Human bodies we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its parts are all connected; furthermore, we can physically divide them apart and perceive them as kinds. A computer we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its parts are connected, furthermore, we can physically divide the computer parts and perceive them as kinds. A building we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its parts are connected, furthermore, we can physically divide the building parts and perceive them as kinds. An airplane we can mentally divide apart and mentally see how all its parts are connected, furthermore, we can physically divide the airplane parts and perceive them as kinds. As we can see, by separating the relations within relations space, not only mentally but physically, we can create less complex structures and perceive them as kinds.

143

Our minds have the ability to understand how many things could be a separation of one form of relations. In the previous contents of this book, the normal Relations Integration and Division refers to the simple process of perceiving two or more things as connected or separated On the other hand, Relations-as-Kinds Awareness involves another ability of our mind to comprehend how many things could be a separation of one form of relations. For example, if we separate the parts of a car, even though those relations are no longer connected we are still capable of understanding them as relations. When they are separated they become more viewable as kinds. However, we are still capable of understanding how the separated parts, or kinds, can be made into one form of relations. If we take apart a computer, even though those relations are no longer connected, we are still capable of understanding them as relations. Whether it is the monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, pc, scanner, or printer, we are can view them as kinds, but can also see how they could be a separation of one form of relations. If we take apart a human being, even though those relations are no longer connected, we are still capable of understanding them as relations. Whether it is the heart, liver, intestines, brain, arms, legs, bones, and muscles, we can view them as kinds, but can also see how they could be a separation of one form of relations. If we take apart a house, even though those relations are no longer connected, we are still capable of understanding them as relations. Whether it is the bricks, windows, pipes, nails, wood, carpet, paint, or furnace, we can view them as kinds, but can also see how they could be a separation of one form of relations. When relations are physically separated, we also give new or separate their descriptions. In the previous examples of car, computer, human, and house, they all are one word description of the given form of relations. However, when relations are physically separated, they are no longer one form of relations, therefore, we also separated their descriptions. The separated parts of a car are no longer called a 'car'. They are called engine, tires, windows, seatbelts, steering wheel, transmission, gas tank, bolts, and so on. When we physically separate them, we also separate their descriptions.

144

The separated parts of a computer are no longer called 'computer'. They are called monitor, mouse, keyboard, speakers, pc, scanner, printer, and so on. When we physically separate the 'computer', we also separate and give them new descriptions. The separated parts of a human being are no longer called 'human being'. They are called heart, liver, intestines, brain, arms, legs, bones, muscles, and so on. When we physically separate the 'human being', we also separate and give them new descriptions. The separated parts of a house are no longer called 'house'. They are called bricks, windows, pipes, nails, wood, carpet, paint, furnace, and so on. When we physically separate the 'house', we also separate and give them new descriptions.

Rotating Comparative Units The dimensions of Kinds Space and Relations Space are interchangeable by rotating the comparative unit. Therefore, this means that the words within a Comparative Unit, can be organized either vertically or horizontally. It just depends on how all the others are ordered. If we were to rotate a comparative unit, such that the kinds are horizontal and the relations are vertical, we get the following: Normal Comparative Unit:

This states: Boat is to Water is to Fish as: Car is to Ground is to Human as: Airplane is to Air is to Bird.

Rotating Comparative Unit 1:

145

Even thou this Comparative Unit was Rotated, the ordered remained constant: thus, the logic associated with each to other in their relative locations remains constant as well: Airplane is to Car is to Boat as: Air is to Ground is to Water as: Bird is to Human is to Fish Even thou this may be hard for our minds to comprehend, the previous statement is true. The order remained the same as in the first comparative unit. The only difference is the rotation: Rotating Comparative Unit 2:

Even thou this Comparative Unit was Rotated, the ordered remained constant: thus, the logic associated with each to other in their relative locations remains constant as well: Bird is to Air is to Airplane as: Human is to Ground is to Car as: Fish is to Water is to Boat: Rotating Comparative Unit 3:

146

Even thou this Comparative Unit was Rotated, the ordered remained constant: thus, the logic associated with each to other in their relative locations remains constant as well: Fish is to Human is to Bird as: Water is to Ground is to Air as: Boat is to Car is to Airplane Even thou this may be hard for our minds to comprehend, the previous statement is true. The order remained the same as in the first comparative unit. The only difference is the rotation: So as we can see, Kinds are Relations and Relations are Kinds. The Kinds within a Kinds Integration can be made into Relations within a Relations Integration and the Relations within a Relations Integration can be made into Kinds within a Kinds Integration. This is because all things are relations and kinds.

147

Comparative Locative Correspondence New logic can be gained by the correspondence of the information within the cells of comparative space. Within any given comparative unit, a comparative to any other comparative, either horizontally or vertically, is equal to any other comparative to one with the same corresponding distance and direction as the previous two comparatives. Book Song Picture Food

Writer Singer Painter Cooker

Reader Listener Viewer Eater

With the previous Comparative Unit, or any one for that matter, new logic can be gained by the correspondence of the information within the cells. All words within each of the cells are comparatives. Each word is unique. Each word is divided. Each word is similar. Each word is connected. The organization of the Comparative Unit is 'that is to that as that is to that'. When the Comparative Unit is longer, it is 'that is to that is to that as that is to that is to that as that is to that is to that…" Nevertheless, the cells within the Comparative Space have an 'is to as' logic not only from left to right and down, but also from right to left and down; from up to down and right, and from down and up to right. In the previous Comparative Unit, we know that Book is to Writer as Song is to Singer. Their distance and direction (Book to Writer and Song to Singer) within the cellular Comparative Space is equal. Also Book to Song and Writer to Singer have equal distance and direction. In this Comparative Unit, the comparatives are also highlighted. Even though they are at distant portions of the comparative space, they still are corresponding in distance and direction; therefore, their logic associated with them can be achieved. Book Song Picture Food

Writer Singer Painter Cooker

Reader Listener Viewer Eater

Normally, we say that Book is to Reader as Food is to Eater, but also: Reader is to Book as: Eater is to Food. Food is to Book as:

148

Eater is to Reader. Book is to Food as: Reader is to Eater. Eater is to Reader as: Food is to Book. Our mind does not have the potential to figure out Food is to Book as Eater is to Reader without Comparative Units. This is how we are able to gain the new logic associated with them because of the comparative locative correspondence. As long as their distance and direction is equal, then they are corresponding.

Deductive Certainty and Uncertainty Our minds are programmed to conclude the order of past memories as remaining the same in the present. There exists a degree of deductive certainty and uncertainty. "Everything stays exactly the same as it was before?" We compare every new and unique moment to similar experiences of the past. Thus, if we perceive portions of a very similar experience, we immediately deduce the corresponding, past relations. However, not all the time do events follow the same order as our past experiences. In order to understand why our mind automatically makes conclusions in specific situations it is important to point out that the reason for this is that deep down in our subconscious mind, we think the order of things in the past will always remain the same for the present moment. Say you go to a house to visit a group of friends. Within the house, there are twelve. Each is all sitting down in the living room watching television. To you, when you enter into the room, automatically your mind will store that information. It will store the information of the entire order of that place: where each person is sitting; what each person is wearing; where each picture is located; and where everything is located within that space, our mind automatically programs that into our memory. Now say for only a few minutes you had to leave from that place for a specific reason. When you leave, in the memory bank, that specific order is stored in the mind as a constant. Thus now when you return back to the room, and then enter the room, you will immediately think that everyone should be in the exact same location as before. The pictures should be in the same location, the same people should have on their unique shoes, and so forth. However, not 149

always is that the case. This is the reason for the Automatic Comparative Inference of corresponding relations of our minds. If you were to close your eyes and randomly visit the rooms within the house, all you need to do is perceive only a specific portion of the room, and immediately, you automatically infer the remaining comparatives. Why? This is because deep within our subconscious we are programmed to compare our past memories to similar present and future experiences. However, in reality, nothing really stays exactly as the way we remember it. For example, if you were to take four friends that you know really well, such that: you know their voice; what they look like, what they wear, and so forth, in your mind you have them stored as previously perceived relations. Now let’s say you had to play a game to see how well you knew each of them. You had to close your eyes to everything except you were allowed to see each of their hands. Would you be able to tell which person it is? Of course. Just by seeing a portion of the total form we have stored in our memories, we can deduce the remaining comparatives as if it would be the same in the present moment as before. However, what if you had one of them speak or say something to you for you to determine which person it is? Based on your past memories, you can immediately determine from which person the voice is being portrayed. Immediately you determine or create a picture in your mind based on your past experiences, that, "He/she is the same as before." Even just by looking at each of their shoes you would be able to determine the rest of the body the shoe belongs to. Why? This is because we have the order of relations of past experiences stored as constant in our memories. However, although most of the times the order from the past is close to constant, there are many times in our life in which we experience things in which we make false conclusions. For example, in the case of your four friends, if you, not knowing who they were, had three of them leave, and had the remaining person speak to you, by his or her voice you would be able to deduce who it is. But what if the voice you heard was actually someone playing a recording on a tape? Thus, in that case we assumed the order of relations of past experience will be exactly the same now as it was before. However, although most of the times it is, but in that time, it was not. Even if one of your friends had to switch shoes for some odd reason, if you were to attempt to guess the person based on their shoes, based on your memory from the order of relations in the past, you would think one was the other and initiate false deduction. Many times, this occurs in life but very rarely. I suspect there exists a percentage, but more than likely the idea that the order of relations of past experiences is constant in the back of our mind is usually correct but many times it isn't. It is that idea that causes that automatic comparative inference of our minds in specific situations in our life, however there exists a degree of comparative uncertainty of the deductive inference.

150

Explaining Itself Relations Space and Kinds Space are Relations and Kinds All the contents of the book up until now, I've explained the elements of Kinds Space, Relations Space, and Comparative Space and described their working system as being the fundamental analogy of the Universe. However, if they are to describe everything that is known, then their description must also apply to their self. Therefore, I am going to discuss the ideas of the kinds of intellectual space and show how they not only describe everything that can be known, but also their self in relation to each other. Let's say we were to create a comparative unit of kinds and relations. We know that we can distinguish the two dimensions, and we know that we can relate the two dimensions. Relations Space is the intellectual space in which things that we know work together or are interdependent of each other in some connected way. Kinds Space is the intellectual space in which things that we know are unique, or different, or distinct of each other in some way or form. Therefore, if they both are to explain their self, we can denote Relations Space and Kinds Space as Kinds space. We can arrange them horizontally: Kinds Space Relations Space

However, we know that not only are they of the same kind, but they both are related to each other. Thus, we can organize them horizontally in Relations Space: Kinds Space

Relations Space

Since they are both kinds and relations, we can organize them into a comparative unit within their self:

151

This states that Kinds Space is related to Relations Space as Relations Space is related to Kinds Space and that Kinds Space is kind to Relations Space as Relations Space is kind to Kinds Space. As with colors, there are kinds: so with the dimensions of human reasoning. And as with forms, there are parts: so with the dimensions of human reasoning. Both of them together explaining their self as their self create comparative space. The principles explain the principles. Another aspect of this system being able to explain itself is the ability of the principles to explain the principles. For example, the principle, "Everything is different," also applies to all of the principles being different. Furthermore, "Everything is similar," also applies to all of the principles being similar. Additionally, all of the principles are also divided in space-time, in which they were created and discovered at different times, and they also are connected in space-time as they all work together to form this system called Comparative Space. They even are all given Kinds and Relations Common and Uncommon Descriptions, and are also comparatives, as some principles are more or less similar and related than others. Each of the principles explains something different according to their relative difference, and they all belong to Comparative Space. We can consider all of the principles and come to notice that they also explain their self, instead of only the things they appear to be outside them.

The Law of Comparative Wholeness and the 4 Fundamental Rules of the Comparative Space The principles of comparative thinking reveal a new law or principle that coincides with every aspect of all the principles already determined. This fundamental law, or truth, is called The Law of Comparative Wholeness. Comparative Space seeks to become whole in all its aspects. There are three defining aspects to the Law of Comparative Wholeness. First, Comparative Units seek to become whole by equalizing its number of Kinds and Relations. This is concerned with the Symmetry of Comparative Space. When the number of relations is not equal to the number of kinds, then the comparative Unit is said to be asymmetrical. However, when the Comparative Units have an equal number of kinds and relations, then the Comparative Unit is symmetrical. This is the Comparative Symmetrical 152

Wholeness. Second, Comparative Units seek to become whole by order. This is concerning the organization of the Comparative Unit. When the relationship measurements between the relations of Kind-Relations or the kinds of RelationKinds are not constant, or equal, then the Comparative Units is not whole is order. However, when the comparatives within comparative are organized, such that there are corresponding relations and kinds, then the Comparative Unit is organized. This is the Comparative Organizational Wholeness. Third, Comparative Units seek to become whole by expansion, or growth. This is concerning the infinite inward and outward. Kinds Space expands indefinitely, including inwardly and outwardly. Relations Space expands indefinitely, including inwardly and outwardly. Comparative Space seeks to expand indefinitely inwardly and outwardly. Comparative Space also seeks to expand in levels. Even thou a Comparative Unit may be finite, it is still not whole, because there are other things known which expands indefinitely. This is the Comparative Expansive Wholeness. However, the Law of Comparative Wholeness can be explained in its simplest form. There are four main rules associated with it, in which are called the four fundamental rules of Comparative Space. Although these rules are taken from the previous list of principles, I have come to notice that they are the main ones, and describe the Symmetrical, Organizational, and Expansive Wholeness of Comparative Space. As Sir Isaac Newton's describe the mechanical aspects of the Universe with his three laws of motion, so with this new law we can describe the fundamental aspects of Comparative Space. The following are the four fundamental rules of Comparative Space: 1. Everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds. 2. Everything belongs to an infinite space of relations. 3. If two or more things are kind and one has an extra relation(s), then there exits corresponding relations to the remaining kinds. 4. If two or more things are related and one has an extra kind(s), then there exists corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. With these four rules, we can compare to all knowledge in the Universe. We can conclude that everything that can be known; everything that can be described; everything that can be understood or comprehended has its place within Comparative Space. This is the fundamental analogy of the Universe, emphasized by the Law of Comparative Wholeness, and is the source in which we are able to compare to all knowledge in our Universe.

153

Absolute Comparative Space The principles are reversed in Absolute Comparative Space. Throughout the contents of the book, it is apparent that Comparative Space and its structure are as particles in the real world. Particles in the real world have density, quantity, and organization. Particles also exist within our regular space-time continuum. However, during course of the book, I've explained comparative space and the things within it in relative, quantitative, and extended manner. Nonetheless, underlying all 'things' in our physical world exist the possibly of things not particularly 'occupying' space and/or time but is space and/or time. These are called absolutes and reveal the fact the possibility of the nonduality of Comparative Space. As previously explained in the earlier sections of the book, a human with finite perception can only perceive but so much of space-time on the higher and lower levels. However, what about a being with infinite perception? Also, what about a being with the perception of itself? The Universe only appears to be extending in differences and distances because we as humans use a means of finite detection. Nonetheless, if we had infinite perception, we would perceive no difference or distances and if we were to observe ourselves, our essence, there would be no difference or distances. If we had infinite perception, everything would appear to be exactly alike: there would be no Kinds Quantity. If we had infinite perception, everything would appear to be in the exact same location: there would be no Relations Quantity. The Principles of the Absoluteness of Comparative Space are preferably opposite than the principles of the physical Comparative Space as described within this book. In Absolute Comparative Space, everything is exactly alike and everything is exactly connected. There is no 'more than one', but only one, and it is non-relative. Therefore, concerning the underlying structure, if the normal comparative principles relate to our material physical world, where underlying the physical material world everything seems to be reversed. Such things as 'things being divided' are in the material world, but in the inner structures of the universe, all things are connected. Thus we can see that it is quite the opposite. In our material world we know that everything is different, however, in the inner structures of existence, since everything is connected, everything must be alike. We can see that such comparative principles are reversed, to explain the zero and infinite world, than the 1 and more than one material world. We can go through all the principles and see them as reversed to create corresponding descriptions of what the world is like on the lowest levels: For example, since in this physical world our minds focus together things that are different and divide as if they were alike and connected. I suspect that for the quantum world, where everything is alike and connected, that there are mind that simply do the opposite. We, for example, focus the universe into finite descriptions; they, however, since everything is connected and alike, divide the universe by descriptions. 154

I suspect that the zero infinite mind creates by dividing things that are connected, and making things different that are alike. Thus I suspect that just as our ecosystem is composed of creatures with life that are interdependent. That as we give off the kind of air plants need and they give off the kind we need, I suspect that is also with the world of nothingness and infiniteness and the world of 1 and n+1. As the zero infinite minds divide nothing into divisions in space and time and into the differences of quantity and quality, we are able to focus those divisions and differences into finite descriptions. Now concerning all the other principles, I suspect that applies to each of them as well. Both the zero and infinite and 1 and N+1 world will be kind to each other within the comparative space, as the relationships between each of their selves and their world's remains constant. As we continue our understanding of the fundamental constituents of the physical Universe that will correspond to the fundamental constituents of Comparative Space, and from there we can create the opposite principles and come to understand the Absoluteness of Comparative Space.

155

Glossary Relations Space – the extension and dimension of comparative space where things are related to each other in an interdependent connected way Relations – things known or understood that are thought of as connected, working together, or interdependent. Relations Awareness – the amount of perceived relations space of any given form of relations Relations Levels of Composition – the inner and outer structures of forms of relations Relations Integration – the mental grouping of things together that are divided as if they work together or are interdependent of each other. Relations Division – the mental dividing of things apart that are connected as if they were not as one Relations Relationship Measurement – the measure of the relatedness and apartness of two or more relations Relations Common Description – when a group of relations have common togetherness descriptions to denote relations integration Relations Uncommon Description – when a group of relations have uncommon descriptions to denote relations division Relations Order – the organization of relations where those most related are closest together Relations Quantity – the number of distinct relations Relations Density – the number of distinct relations per unit of relations awareness Relations Nested Patterns – state in which the order and structure of relations within relations space form nested patterns Relations Transitivity – property of the distant interconnectivity of relations within relations space Related-Kinds – spectrums of kinds that are related to other spectrums of kinds Related-Comparative Units – comparative units that are related to other comparative units Kinds Space – the extension and dimension of human knowledge where things are unique and alike in characteristics Kinds – things known or understood that are thought of as being alike or similar in some way. Kinds Awareness – the amount of perceived kinds space of any give spectrum of kinds Kinds Levels of Composition – the inner and outer structures of spectrums of kinds Kinds Integration – then mental grouping of things together that are distinct as if they were alike or similar in some way or form Kinds Division – the mental dividing of things apart as if they were different Kinds Relationship Measurement – the measure of similarity and difference of two or more kinds 156

Kinds Common Description – when a group of kinds share a common description to denote kinds integration Kinds Uncommon Description – when a group of kinds have uncommon descriptions to denote Kinds Order – the organization of kinds where those most alike closest together Kinds Quantity – the number of distinct kinds Kinds Density – the number of distinct kinds per unit of kinds awareness Kinds Nested Patterns – state in which the order and structure of relations within relations space form nested patterns Kinds Transitivity – property of the distant interconnectivity of kinds within kinds space Kind-Relations – forms of relations that are kind to other forms of relations Kind-Comparative Units – comparative units that are kind to other comparative units Comparative Space – the extension of human reasoning where we can compare things Comparative Unit – units knowledge arranged in groups of cells where kinds are ordered vertically and relations horizontally Comparative Awareness – the amount of perceived comparative space of any given unit of comparatives Comparative Levels of Composition – the inner and outer structure of comparative units Comparatives – things know or understood that are thought of as being alike or similar and related or interdependent Comparative Integration – the mental grouping of things together that are distinct as if they were comparatives Comparative Division – the mental dividing of things apart that are comparatives as if they were distinct Comparative Relationship Measurement – the measure of the similarity, difference; relatedness and apartness of 4 or more comparatives Comparative Common Description – when a group of comparatives share a common description Comparative Uncommon Description – when a group of comparatives have uncommon descriptions Comparative Order – the organization of comparatives where those most alike and related are closest together Comparative Quantity – the number of distinct comparatives Comparative Unit Density – the number of distinct comparatives per unit of comparative awareness Comparative Nested Patterns – state in which the order and structure of comparatives within comparatives space form nested patterns Comparative Transitivity – property of the distant interconnectivity of comparatives within comparative space Comparative-Comparative Units – comparative units that are comparatives to other comparative units Comparative Plane – the infinite extension of comparative space

157

Automatic Comparative Inference – process of the mind in which one automatically deduces the corresponding relations or kinds of a given comparative unit. Comparative Locative Correspondence: - property of comparative space stating the correspondence of comparatives at distant, but proportional locations within comparative space Deductive Certainty - the certain inferences based on the remembrance of the order of things in the past Deductive Uncertainty - the uncertain inferences based on the remembrance of the order of things in the past. The Law of Comparative Wholeness – law emphasized by the four fundamental rules of comparative space explaining the infinite and symmetrical expansion of comparative space.

158

List of Principles There exist two dimensions of human reasoning that work together to create comparative space: Kinds space and Relations space. Kinds Space times Relations Space is Equal to Comparative Space. The dimensions are interchangeable. Anything that we can know or understand we can give a corresponding description using symbolic forms. Everything is different. Everything is similar. Everything is divided. Everything is connected. Everything being unique and alike, divided and related creates Comparative Space. Our mind has the ability to group together things that are unique as if they were alike. Our mind has the ability to group together things that are divided as if they were related. Our mind has the ability to group together things that are distinct and divided into comparatives. Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that are alike as if they were distinct. Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be connected as if they were divided. Our mind has the ability to divide apart things that appear to be alike and connected as if they were distinct and divided. At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Kinds Space. Kinds Space extends indefinitely.

159

The Kinds Awareness of any given spectrum of kinds can be increased to larger portions of the spectrum. At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of Relations Space. Relations space extends indefinitely. The Relations Awareness of any given form of relations can be increased to larger portions of the Relations Space. At any given time, we can perceive only a finite portion of comparative space. Comparative space extends indefinitely. The comparative awareness of any given unit of comparatives can be increased to larger portions of the comparative unit. Everything belongs to an infinite space of kinds. Everything is composed of kinds. Everything belongs to an infinite space of relations. Everything is composed of relations. Everything has its place within comparative space. Everything is composed of comparatives. The kinds within the infinite expansion of Kinds Space form nested patterns. The relations within the infinite expansion of relations space form nested patterns. The comparatives within the infinite expansion of comparative space form nested patterns. If two or more things are kind, then they each are kind to each of their kinds. If two or more things are related, then they each are related to each of their relations. If four or more things are comparative, then they each are comparative to each of their comparatives. The more alike are two or more kinds, the greater their kinds relationship measurement.

160

The more related are two or more relations, the greater their relations relationship measurement. The more alike and related are four or more comparatives, the greater their comparative relationship measurement. Spectrums of kinds must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those that are most alike are closest together and those least alike farthest apart. Forms of relations must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those that are most related are closest together and those least related farthest apart. Comparatives within a comparative unit must maintain a specific order for understanding, where those that are most alike and related are closest together and those least alike and related farthest apart. Within any given spectrum of kinds, there exists a specific Kinds Quantity. Within any given form of relations, there exists a specific relations quantity. Within any given unit of comparatives, there exists a specific comparative quantity. The greater the number of kinds within a given portion of kinds space, the greater the kinds density. The greater the number of relations within a given portion of relations space, the greater the relations density. The greater the number of comparatives within any given portions of comparative space, the greater the comparative density. Those things we group together as if they were alike, we give common descriptions. Within a Comparative Unit, the Kinds Common Description comes after the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions; the Kinds Uncommon Descriptions come before the Kinds Common Description. Applying common kinds descriptions to uncommon kind descriptions and uncommon kinds descriptions to common kinds descriptions increases our kinds integration and division of the kinds. Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as alike.

161

Those things we group together as if they were related, we give a common description. Within a Comparative Unit, the Relations Common Description comes before the Relations Uncommon Descriptions; the Relations Uncommon Descriptions come after the Relations Common Description. Applying common relations descriptions to uncommon relations descriptions and uncommon relations descriptions to common relations descriptions increases our relations integration and division of the relations. Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as related. Those things we group together as if they were comparatives, we give a common description. Applying common comparative descriptions to uncommon comparative descriptions and uncommon comparative descriptions to common comparative descriptions increases our comparative integration and division of the comparative parts. Every corresponding description applies to more than one thing we consider as comparative. Those things we divide apart as if they were distinct, we give uncommon descriptions. The relations we separate as if they were divided, we give uncommon descriptions. Those things we divide apart as if they were separate and distinct, we give uncommon descriptions. Within any given spectrum of kinds, we can group and divide them into main kinds. Within any given form of relations, we can group and divide them into main parts. Within any given unit of comparatives, we can group and divide them into main parts. Within any given comparative unit, kinds are perpendicular to relations. Kinds are organized vertically. Relations are organized horizontally. Difference Relates to Difference

162

Similarity Relates to Similarity Divisions are kind to divisions. Connections are kind to connections. What applies to one spectrum of kinds applies to all spectrums of kinds, but differently according to their relative difference. What applies to one form of relations applies to all forms of relations, but differently according to their relative difference. If two or more things are kinds and one has an extra relation, then there exists corresponding relations to the remaining kinds. The relationship between the relations of each of the corresponding Kind-Relations is equal. If two or more things are relations and one has an extra kind, then there exists corresponding kinds to the remaining relations. The relationship between the kinds of each of the corresponding Relation-Kinds is equal. Comparative units can always be completed. The greater the distance between kinds the more work is needed to find their corresponding relations. The greater the distance between relations the more work is needed to find their corresponding kinds. Corresponding relations of Kind-Relations are spectrums of kinds. Corresponding kinds of Relation-Kinds are forms of relations. Spectrums of kinds can be divided into Kind-Relations Forms of relations can be divided into Relation-Kinds Of any given comparative unit, the number of kinds of each of its Relation-Kinds is equal to the number of Kind-Relations. Of any given comparative unit, the number of relations of each of its KindRelations is equal to the number of Relation-Kinds. Comparative units can be related to other comparative units. Comparative units can be kind to other comparative units.

163

Comparative units can be comparative to other comparative units. Every word is a comparative unit. All knowledge can be organized into a comparative unit. The descriptions of Kind-Relations have common Relations Integration description and an uncommon Relations Division description. The descriptions of Relation-Kinds have common Kinds Integration description and an uncommon Kinds Division description. Kinds are Relations. Relations are Kinds. Kinds can be physically mixed into relations creating more complex structures. Our minds have the ability to understand how one thing is a combination of two or more distinct kinds. When kinds are physically combined, we also give new or combine their descriptions. Relations can be physically separated into kinds creating less complex structures. Our minds have the ability to understand how many things could be a separation of one form of relations. When relations are physically separated, we also give new or separate their descriptions. Kinds Space and Relations Space can be made interchangeable by rotating comparative units. New logic can be gained by the locative correspondence of the information within the cells of comparative space. Within any given comparative unit, a comparative to any other comparative, either horizontally or vertically, is equal to any other comparative to one with the same corresponding distance and direction as the previous two comparatives.

164

Our minds are programmed to conclude the order of past memories as remaining the same in the present. There exists a degree of deductive certainty and uncertainty. Relations Space and Kinds Space are Relations and Kinds The principles explain the principles The principles are reversed in Absolute Comparative Space.

165

Appendix Elements of the Comparative Unit

166

Quantitative Relationships of Comparative Unit

CU = Comparative Unit KR = Kind-Relations RK = Related-Kinds C = Comparatives of CU R = Relations of each KR K = Kinds of each RK CU = C C = CU K = KR KR = K R = RK RK = R KR X RK = C RK X KR = C KR X RK = CU RK X KR = CU C / KR = RK C / RK = KR CU / KR = RK CU / RK = KR RXK=C KXR=C

167

R X K = CU K X R = CU C/K=R C/R=K CU / K = R CU / R = K

The Comparative Plane As length and width creates a two dimensional plane in geometrical mathematics, comparative space can be thought of as a two dimensional plane that extends indefinitely in all four directions: up, down, left, and right. We know that kinds are ordered vertically, and relations are ordered horizontally, or at least perpendicular to each other. Concerning the spectrums of each comparative plane, there are an infinite of them, or to more easily put it, there are an infinite of relations of spectrums of kinds, which go left and right. And on the other end, there are an infinite of kinds of relations, which go up and down. Thus of the comparative plane, there are an infinite spectrum of kinds, and there are an infinite form of relations. Within each spectrum there are an infinite of kinds, but within each comparative plane, there are an infinite of spectrum of kinds. Within each form of relations, there are an infinite relations, but within each comparative plane, there are an infinite of each of the form of relations. The infinite spectrums are infinite relations. And the infinite relations are infinite spectrums. We can use those measurements to determine the number of comparatives within the comparative plane. Since we know that there are an infinite of kinds in each spectrum and infinite of relations in each form of relation, then we can conclude that the number of comparatives within the comparative plane, considering it is divided into infinite parts, would result in an infinite infinite of comparatives. Or simply put: The number of kinds within each spectrum is infinite. The number of spectrums within each comparative plane is infinite. The number of relations within each form is infinite The number of form of relations within each comparative is infinite. The number of comparatives within each comparative plane is infinite 2

Dividing the Dimensions of Human Reasoning into 4, 8, 12, 24…Dimensions of Comparative Space 168

We can also divide the dimensions of human reasoning into ‘sub’ dimensions. Throughout the years I’ve come to notice within the dimensions of kinds, there is that of quality and quantity. And within the dimension of relations, there’s that of space and time.

Kinds Space Quantitative Differences and Similarities Qualitative Differences and Similarities

Relations Space Spatial Distances and Proximities Time Distances and Proximities We can organize them into a sort of comparative unit. However, it matters little how we arrange them since they are comparatives themselves:

Quantity

Space

Quality

Time

I also suspect that just as we divided kinds into quality and quantity and relations into space and time, I suspect we could divide each of the four as well in to even more sub dimensions; and the same for each of those divisions, and so on. In which we create infinite divisions of the comparative space.

Left and Right Brian and Relations and Kinds As we know, the majority of the people on the earth are right handed. Similarly, I come to notice that such understanding of the principles of the comparative unit involving relations and kinds seem to be very similar. Most are more aware of the relations of things than as the kinds of things. Finding corresponding kinds to remaining kinds of kind-relations seem to be what we are mentally already programmed to do, however, finding corresponding relations to the remaining relations of related-kinds, which is inverse seems to require more effort and seems to be less of what we used to do before. But both of them are equally executable, like that of our right and left hands, but many times, when it comes to the mind, something things are more dominant than others. This seems to be as relations and kinds as well.

169

Evolution of New Dimensions of Human Reasoning As we know, the process of evolution continuously undergoes as new developments of various portions of species are created. Concerning our evolution, certain parts of our brain developed over the years. And thus as new parts developed, we were able to understand and do more things. I suspect this will be also with the dimensions of human reasoning. We currently are aware of two, and the sub dimensions, but as the evolution of new parts of the brain are developed, based upon the laws of evolution, so also the evolution of new dimensions of human reasoning. I suspect that just as concerning the evolution of the new parts of the brain, that they all relate to each other, thus so also will the new dimensions of human reasoning.

Alien Species and Multiple Dimensions of Human Reasoning Such species as that of the worm, has not much complex environment purposes as that of such higher levels species as walking animals. The worm’s brain makeup is not required to be as complex for its environment and purposes. However, concerning species on higher levels of the chain, and concerning species with more complex environmental conditions, so also evolution of the brains of the species in proportion to their environments and purposes. Just as there are species more complex than other species on the levels of evolution of the earth, I suspect that there are species more complex than our current homosapien species. As previously noted, our homosapien species contains two dimensions of human reasoning, however, with such alien species, or species with more complex conditions and purposes than our own, I suspect to have multiple dimensions of human reasoning. Some species have not only just two dimensions for two dimensional comparative space, but that of three dimensions, and perhaps even of four and five and beyond. The relationships between the dimensions of their human reasoning would be the same though however but just a more complex and iterated version of our human reasoning.

The Universe as a Wave within Comparative Space We know that the Universe is constantly undergoing change. We know that as new kinds of things are created, and constantly older things die off. New species come into existence, and other species become extinct. If we were to think of the universe as comparative space, or more precisely, considering it as finite, but comparative space infinite, we can imagine the Universe as a wave within the comparative space: as new kinds are created

170

old kinds dies off simultaneously. As new relations are added, new spectrums are formed and older relations die off. In the previous example, considering the highlighted portion of comparative space as the universe, as the wave proceeds as a whole to partake of new portions of that comparative space, specific portions are highlight and simultaneously its opposite portions vanish. And thus as a whole, continuously, the universe as a wave travels through comparative space.

171

Measuring Knowledge As previously discussed in the contents of this book, such things as applying common descriptions to a number of distinct or divided things in Universe, we can sort of focus the knowledge within the description, adding that we understand its meaning. However, certain common descriptions apply to much larger awareness of distinct and divide things in our universe. However, as with such large things that take up great portions of space not always mean that it has a great quantity. Such great dense objects as black holes, having great density but such smaller area can be equivalent to such things as great area as but with small density. Likewise, considering measuring knowledge and the common descriptions of greater awareness, just because a description applies to a great relations and kinds spatial awareness of things, doesn't mean it has high relations or kinds density. Or just because it applies to a smaller portion of relations and kinds space, doesn't mean it has low relations or kinds density. As with the mass, area, and density of objects within space that we can measure and determine the quantity of the mass, so also with the relations and kinds density, the relations and kinds space, we can determine the amount of knowledge within a given description. Such thing as memory of detail applies to the amount of knowledge of a description. The more memory of detail, within a given description, the more knowledge we could say that it possesses. 172

For example, we can say, "Everything", but mentally, not remember or have in memory the detail of everything. I suspect to accurately measure knowledge, the density of the descriptions within each description, and the level of awareness it applies to would have to with doing so.

Human Inventions, Evolution, and Comparative Completion If you have noticed, throughout the many sections of this book, concerning comparative units, such descriptions in the comparative unit corresponding to things that already do exist. However, there are many things, when it comes to building comparative unit, that don’t yet exist. This has to do with human inventions, and evolution. As we know, the process of evolution is constantly undergoing change. However, with the building of comparative units, we are able to go much faster, at least at the current rate of evolution as it is now. Many times, when we begin to build comparative units, the new determined relations and kinds are predictions of the future of evolution. When we build comparative units concerning things that we as humans have invented and created, we are selves must also create the new kinds of the corresponding relations of the comparative unit. However, concerning evolution itself, outside of human consciousness, there are things that it has created on its own, but so also, with the building of comparative units, we find many times, new kinds or relations, that evolution hasn’t yet created. I suspect that with comparative completion, our mind evolves faster than the rate of current evolution, and that of human inventions, once we reach the levels of comparative knowledge in its highest forms, will have to take its place.

Shifting Realities and Comparative Space Such things as dreams, we can think of as being kind to our physical awakening world. Many psychologists and dream interpreters come to conclude such things as dream dictionaries of symbols in dreams corresponding to the things in our everyday life. I suspect that when undergoing symbolic dreams our mind simply just shifts to a lower or higher spectrum of reality. And thus, just as with colors, even though they can shift, the relationships to their self remain the same, so also with that of our reality and dreams. I suspect that dreams are in reality, the same reality we live in our every day awakening world, but it is just that everything is shifted and appears different. Everything shifts in proportion such that the entire world around us and within us changes, similar to like the red shift of frequencies of colors of light. The

173

relationships of all the relations of our environment remain the same, concerning each reality; we just shift to higher or lower levels of the spectrum. And as with the finite perceptions of any given spectrum, thus more than likely it applies to all realities. If we ever shift to realities on higher or lower levels of the spectrum, in reality, they are all the same reality we live in everyday, it's just that everything undergoes a shift in portions, such that all relationships remain the same. All realities, or dimensions in the Universe, are as kind-relations of comparative space. Every different reality, or world, to itself and everything else surrounding it is equal to all other different worlds to their self and everything else around each of them.

Finite Description, Comparative Space; Physical Reality and Comparative Creating Throughout the contents of the book, I’ve explained, the two kinds of human reasoning that work together to create comparative space. Within the comparative space can be placed descriptions of the things we know in the Universe, such descriptions as numbers, symbols, letters etc. However, as previously explained in the earlier sections of the book, every description applies to more than one thing in the physical world. Our mind focuses together the quantity of the physical world into one and we give it a corresponding description. Thus within that word, or description, contains a given number of physical space. And thus with each description, concerning placing each of them within comparative space, we can conclude that each symbol within it, isn’t exactly the physical world, but a mental knowing of it. Words describe our physical world, words, or more precisely, their description, however, are not physical. So when we attempt to place things known within comparative space, we are only doing so in part because of the finite descriptions our minds are capable of undergoing. However, our beings are not only capable of understanding the universe but also, we are capable of creating. We are not only capable of absorbing the knowledge of existence and placing it within finite words, but we are also capable of building houses, creating plants, and all other forms of creation. With our finite description and the two dimension of human reasoning, in the actually physical world, there are multiple dimensions. As previously discussed, the dimension of relations can be divided into space and time, and the dimension of kinds into quantity and quality. And just as space can be divided into its dimensions, I suspect so also with time, quantity and quality. And we can keep on doing so all the way to infinite, or like the roots of a tree. So what does this have to do with the physical world and finite description? Earlier in the sections of the book I’ve explained how such things as new inventions can be thought out to exist, or that new kinds of species can

174

correspond to certain kind of environments just like our earth. But what is the physical make up of these things thing that are deduced by the principles of comparative thinking? As we can see, since our mind focuses large portions of the universe, into finite descriptions, so we can say such things exists, by the physical make up would still have to be created. In order to successfully compute and compare the physical world like we’ve done within the finite world of knowledge and words, I suspect we would have to conclude the multiple dimensions of comparative space as well. So in a sense, kinds space and relations space, are the two dimensions of reasoning, to create comparative space. However, to create comparative forms in the real world would require more complexity of the multiple and sub dimensions and of computational creating rather than the organizing of finite words of knowledge within informational comparative space.

The Warping of Kinds and Relations Space Throughout this book, I’ve mainly dealt with comparative space as a twodimensional plane extending in the directions of relations and kinds. However, in our physical 3 dimensional world, it has been thought that space itself could be curved. We know that as we stand on earth, looking straight ahead may appear to be straight. Or walking forward may appear as if we’re walking on a 2 dimensional plane, but as we keep going, we will find out we’ll end up on the opposite, and if we continue, back to where we started. I suspect concerning comparative space, that such similar things can occur. Concerning kinds and relations space that extend perpendicular in the various directions, I suspect that on a large scale, kinds within kinds space that are so diverse that they begin to become relations, and relations are so diverse that they become kinds. If we consider it as curved, we can create comparative space as follows:

175

As a force field:

As we can see, there exists the possibility of Kinds Space and Relations Space looping unto each other. Such things as consider it as a circle, or similar to a force field could show how it is able to do so. Also, showing them similar to the form of a doughnut or other kinds of curving could yield some possibilities of such spaces being curved.

Imaginary Comparative Units For easy understanding, I have included this section with the idea of building comparative units within imaginary comparative space. By doing so, one can gain a more simple and precise understanding and learn the process of comparative construction and completion: 176

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

177

____________________________________________________________________

178

________________________________________________________________________

179

________________________________________________________________________

180

181

182

183